9-s 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

Theological   Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N.  J. 


BV    665     .S6 

Snodgrass,  William  Davxs 

1796-1886. 


Discourses  on  the 


.^4-^1  4  /-oT   «"^ 


tm^*i  O  "•  i^*^ 


DISCOURSES 


APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 


BY  W.  D.  SNODGRASS,  D.  D., 

PASTOR  OF  THE  SECOND-STREET  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH,  TROY. 
I 


TROY,    N.  Y.: 

STEDMAN  &  REDFIELD,  225  RIVER-STREET. 

N.  TUTTLE,  Printer, 

1844. 


Entered  according'  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1844,  by 

STEDMAN  &  REDFIELD, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Northern  District  of  New-York. 


m 


TROY,  February  19,  1S44. 
Rev,  W.  D.  Sxodgrass, 

Bear  Sir, — The  undersigned,  members  of  your  Session,  Board  of 
Trustees,  and  Congregation,  have  listened  with  attention  to  the  able 
and  interesting  series  of  discourses  which  you  have  recently  delivered 
on  the  Apostolical  Succession.  This  subject  has,  from  recent  occur- 
rences, become  one  of  deep  interest  to  all  evangelical  denominations 
of  christians.  And  fully  believing,  as  we  do,  that  you  have,  in  those 
discourses,  clearly  and  satisfactorily  shown  from  the  Word  of  God, 
what  it  is  that  constitutes  an  authorized  christian  ministry ;  and.  enter- 
taining the  opinion,  that  their  publication,  with  a  view  to  a  more  ex- 
tended circulation,  would  be  useful  in  contributing  to  establish  in  the 
public  mind,  enlightened,  sound,  safe,  and  scriptural  views  of  this  im- 
portant subject — we  most  respectfully  request,  that  they  may  be  pre- 
sented to  the  public,  through  the  medium  of  the  press,  in  such  form  as 
you  may  prefer,  and  as  early  as  may  suit  your  convenience. 


Sessioji. 
GEOR,GE  VAIL, 
DANIEL  AVIGHT, 
L.  J.  RUNDELL, 
EDWARD  AVILSOX 
ROBERT  WASSON, 
ABRAHAM  BROWER 
WILLIAM  NO  YES, 
LE  ROY  MOWRY, 
G.  W.  FRANCIS. 


Trustees. 
BENJAiVnN  MARSHALL, 
ABRAHA^I  HOWLAND, 
T.  M.  VAIL, 
Jr.,  N.  SAGE, 

J.  L.  VAN  SCHOONHO\T^N, 

D.  T.  VAIL, 
JOHN  T.  M'COUN, 
WILLIAM  C.  RICE, 

E.  THOMPSON  GALE. 


J.  VAN  SCHOONHOVEN, 
E.  PROFDFIT, 
B.  P.  LEARNED, 
JOHN  C.  MATHER, 
WILLIAM  W.  WIGHT, 
MIC  AH  J.  LYMAN, 
EBENEZER  CLARK, 
WAITE  LOWRY, 
CHARLES  MOORE, 
SETH  H.  TERRY, 
SAMUEL  G.  HUNTINGTON, 


VAN  WYCK  WICKES, 
DANIEL  GARDNER, 
T.  W.  BLATCHFORD, 
A.  SEASON, 

A.  VAN  TUYL, 
JESSE  PATRICK, 

B.  S.  LYMAN, 

THOS.  W.  LOCKWOOD, 
RICHARD  H.  FITCH, 
MOSES  BROWNELL. 


IV 


TROY,  February  2^1,  1844. 

To  THE  Session,  Trustees,  and  others, 

Of  the  Second-street  Presbyterian  Church,  Troy: 

Christian  Friends^ — The  discourses,  referred  to  in  your  communi- 
cation, are  in  the  form  of  short  notes,  which  were  prepared  from  week 
to  week  during-  the  course  of  their  delivery.  In  yielding  to  your  re- 
quest, therefore,  I  cannot  promise  that  you  will  be  able,  at  all  times,  to 
recognize  the  exact  language  in  which  you  heard  them,  nor  precisely 
the  same  arrangement  as  to  the  matter.  It  may  seem  expedient,  also, 
in  preparing  them  for  the  press,  to  amplify  the  discussion  on  some 
points,  as  well  as  to  make  some  addition  to  the  list  of  authorities.  The 
general  course  of  the  argument,  however,  shall  remain  the  same. 

It  is  known  to  you  all,  that  any  thing  like  fondness  for  controversy 
has  been  far  from  the  tenor  and  spirit  of  my  ministry  among  you.  In 
the  present  case,  there  was  a  demand,  on  the  part  of  yourselves  and 
others,  for  a  temperate  discussion  of  the  High  Church  doctrine  of 
Apostolical  Succession,  which  it  would  have  been  wrong  for  me  to 
resist.  And  nothing  but  a  disposition  to  meet  the  wishes  of  those, 
who  listened  to  the  argument  with  so  much  patience  and  respectful 
attention,  could  have  induced  me  to  consent  to  its  publication. 
I  remain  yours. 

With  sincere  respect  and  affection, 

W.  D.  SNODGRASS. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The  foregoing  correspondence  will  sufficiently  account  for  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  following  pages. 

Things  which  are  very  absurd  in  themselves,  are  sometimes  forced 
by  circumstances  into  positions  of  great  importance.  This  we  believe 
to  be  true  of  the  modern  doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession.  Nothing 
could  save  it  from  utter  contempt,  but  the  extent  and  respectability  of 
the  denomination  of  christians  with  which  it  stands  associated.  Enor- 
mous as  its  pretensions  are,  it  gains  currency  from  the  stations  and 
influence  of  those  who  appear  on  its  side ;  and  it  will  not  die  of  itself. 
Like  other  errors,  it  must  be  brought  to  the  tests  of  reason  and  scrip- 
ture ;  and  to  subject  it  to  the  operation  of  these  tests,  is  the  appropri- 
ate work  of  the  pastors  of  the  churches,  who,  in  their  respective  places, 
are  set  for  the  defence  of  the  Gospel. 

These  are  the  views  which  governed  the  author,  in  the  preparation 
and  delivery  of  the  discourses  which  are  contained  in  this  volume. 
His  aim  was  to  exhibit  an  outline  of  the  plain  reasons  which  exist  for 
rejecting  the  doctrine  in  question,  not  only  as  untrue,  but  as  tending 
directly  to  the  ejectment  of  a  large  proportion  of  the  christian  world 
from  the  inheritance  of  the  people  of  God.  Not  a  few,  whose  judg- 
ment he  is  bound  to  respect,  have  supposed  that  a  wider  circulation  of 
the  views  presented  might  subserve  the  interests  of  the  cause  of  truth. 
And,  in  compliance  with  their  wishes,  he  submits  these  views  to  the 
candid  consideration  of  the  christian  public. 


1* 


vn 


CONTENTS. 


DISCOimSE  I. 

The  Doctrine  stated — its  exclusive,  and  unchurching  character — 
reasons  for  discussing-  it. — Judges  xvii.  13 page  9 


DISCOURSE  11. 

The  Doctrine  brought  to  its  proper  test — no  starling-point,  in 
scripture,  for  a  line  of  succession  by  prelates — no  name  for  a  pre- 
latical  bishop  among  the  scriptural  titles. — Isaiah  viii.  20 37 


DISCOURSE  III. 

The  SA3IE  SUBJECT  CONTINUED — prclatical  bishops  not  kno\vn  in 
scripture,  by  character  and  office — are  not  successors  to  the  Apos- 
tles.—Acts  svii.  11 Q5 


DISCOURSE   IV. 

The  nature  of  Ordination — the  power  of  ordination  not  peculiar 
to  the  apostolical  office — prelatical  bishops  not  their  only  succes- 
sors in  the  exercise  of  this  function. — I.  Tim.  ii.  7 105 


YIU 


DISCOURSE  V. 


No  TRACES  OF  A  Prelatical  Bishop  in  the  Jewish  high  priest- 
hood—in Timothy— in  Titus— nor  in  the  Angels  of  the  seven 
churches.— Phil.  i.  1 143 


DISCOURSE  VI. 

Testimony  of  the  Fathers— no  prelatical  bishops  during  the  first 
two  centuries— rise  of  prelac3^— Matt.  xv.  0 175 


DISCOURSE  VII. 

The  Apostolical  Succession  brought  to  the  test  of  History — 
cannot  be  traced— neither  in  the  line  of  the  Pi,omish,  nor  of  the 
Anglican  church.— Neh.  vii.  64 211 


DISCOURSE  VIII. 
The  True  Succession.— Matt,  xxviii.  20 255 


DISCOURSE  L 


:^m 


THE  DOCTRINE  STATED— ITS  EXCLUSIVE,  AND  UNCHURCH- 
ING CHARACTER— REASONS  FOR  DISCUSSING  IT. 


Judges  xvii.   13.    Now  know  I  that  the  Lord  will  do  me  g-ood,  see- 
ing I  have  a  Levite  to  my  priest. 

It  occurs  among  the  wise  remarks  of  the  wisest 
of  mere  men,  that  "  there  is  no  neia  thing  un- 
der the  sun."  "  Is  there  any  thing,"  he  inquires, 
"  whereof  it  may  be  said,  see,  this  is  new"?  And 
he  answers  this  inquiry,  by  saying,  "  it  hath  been 
already  of  old  time  which  was  before  us." — To 
trace  the  evidences  of  the  truth  of  this  statement? 
as  they  lie  out  to  our  view  upon  the  general  field 
of  history  and  observation,  is  no  part  of  my  pres- 
ent purpose.  I  advert  to  it,  only  for  the  purpose 
of  reminding  you,  that  one  of  the  chief  illustra- 
tions of  its  truth,  is  to  be  found  in  the  errors  which 
appear  from  time  to  time,  in  connection  with  the 
progress  of  the  church  of  Christ.     Many  of  these 


10  DISCOURSES  ON 

errors  seem,  to  the  popular  apprehension,  to  be 
*'new";  and,  in  some  cases,  they  are  so,  to  the 
generation  who  occupy  the  stage  of  hfe  when  they 
arise.  But,  in  going  back  over  the  history  of  the 
past,  we  shall  generally  find,  that,  instead  of  be- 
ing new  in  reality,  they  are  merely  the  revival  or 
re-appearance  of  old  errors,  wiiich  have  prevailed 
in  other  times — which  have  never,  perhaps,  been 
entirely  eradicated  from  the  human  mind — and 
which,  after  lying  dormant  for  years,  and  some- 
times for  centuries,  break  out  afresh,  and  prevail 
with  equal,  and  not  unfrequently  with  increased 
activity  and  power. 

In  view  of  this  fact,  you  will  not  be  surprised, 
if  I  invite  you  to  accompany  me,  as  far  back  in 
the  history  of  the  past  as  to  the  words  of  the  text, 
for  an  example  and  illustration  of  an  error,  which 
is  re-appearing  in  our  age  and  country,  and  the 
revival  of  v/hich  is  attractinsr  the  attention  and 
awakening  the  solicitude  of  the  friends  of  evange- 
lical piety  in  this,  and  in  other  lands.  It  seems, 
from  the  connection  in  which  the  passage  is  found, 
that,  "  in  those  days  in  which  there  was  no  king  in 
Israel,  but  every  man  did  that  which  was  right  in 
his  own  eyes,"  there  came  a  strolling  Levite  to 
Mount  Ephraim,  to  the  house  of  a  man  whose 
name  was  Micah.  This  latter  individual,  though 
an  unprincipled  and  wicked  man,  was  yet  of  a  re- 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  11 

ligious  turrij  according  to  his  own  views  of  what 
rehgion  required.  He  was  an  Israelite,  by  birth 
and  education  :  he  believed  in  the  existence  and 
character  of  the  true  God  ;  but  his  modes  of  wor- 
ship were  moddled,  in  many  respects,  after  the 
idolatrous  practices  of  the  heathen.  The  histori- 
cal notice,  in  regard  to  this  point,  is,  that  he  "  had 
a  house  of  gods"  :  he  had  "  a  graven  image  and  a 
molten  image,"  made  of  "  two  hundred  shekels 
of  silver"  ;  and  besides  these,  ''  an  ephod  and 
teraphim."  And,  to  complete  his  arrangements, 
he  "  consecrated  one  of  his  sons  who  became  his 
priest."  With  this  latter  item  in  the  arrangement, 
however,  he  seems  never  to  have  been  entirely 
satisfied.  He  chose  a  member  of  his  own  family, 
to  be  the  ofnciating  Priest  of  his  house,  not  be- 
cause he  preferred  him  above  all  others,  but  be- 
cause he  had  no  other  material  at  hand,  from 
which  to  make  the  selection.  And,  therefore, 
when  the  wandering  Levite  appeared  at  the  door 
of  his  house,  it  occurred  to  him  at  once,  that  an 
opportunity  for  a  better  adjustment,  in  respect  to 
this  point,  was  nov/  presented.  He  broached  the 
subject  im.mediately,  by  inquiring,  ^'Whence  com- 
est  thou"?  And  the  reply  was,  "  I  am  a  Levite 
of  Beth-lehem-judah,  and  I  go  to  sojourn  where  I 
may  find  a  place.  And  Micah  said  unto  him, 
dwell  with  me,   and  be  unto  me  a  father  and  a 


12  DISCOURSES    ON 

priest,  and  I  will  give  thee  ten  shekels  of  silver  by 
the  year,  and  a  suit  of  apparel,  and  thy  victuals." 
(Not  a  very  flattering  offer,  it  must  be  confessed 
— amounting  to  an  annual  consideration  of  some- 
thing less  than  six  dollars,  with  boarding  and 
a  suit  of  clothes ! — Nevertheless,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  thing  better,  it  was  accepted.)  ''  So 
the  Levite  went  in.  And  the  Levite  was  content 
to  dwell  with  the  man  ;  and  the  young  man  was 
unto  him  as  one  of  his  sons.  And  Micah  conse- 
crated the  Levite  ;  and  the  young  man  became 
his  priest,  and  was  in  the  house  of  Micah."  Thus 
far,  the  history.  And,  now,  we  come  to  Micah's 
reflections  upon  the  value  of  the  acquisition  he  had 
made.  To  his  view,  it  was  an  acquisition  which 
connected  him  immediately  and  certainly  with  the 
blessing  of  God.  He  knew,  indeed,  that  the  per- 
son whom  he  had  received  into  his  house,  was  an 
idle  vagabond,  who  had  wandered  far  from  home 
in  search  of  a  place,  and  who  had  no  higher  ob- 
ject in  view  than  to  get  a  living,  by  making  mer- 
chandise of  his  Levitical  character  and  relations. 
And  yet,  in  the  mere  circumstance  that  he  ivas  a 
Levite,  he  regarded  himself  as  furnished  with  eve- 
ry thing  that  he  needed,  and  sung  out  his  super- 
stitious confidence,  by  saying,  "  Now  know  I  that 
the  Lord  will  do  me  good,  seeing  I  have  a  Levite 
to  my  priest."     It  mattered  not  to  him,  what  he 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  13 

was,  in  other  respects  :  his  moral  and  religious 
character,  as  an  individual,  Avas  not,  for  one  mo- 
ment, taken  into  the  account :  he  might  be  as 
wicked  as  Cain,  and  as  wily  and  hypocritical  as 
Satan  himself;  but,  because  there  was  Levitical 
blood  in  his  veins,  and  he  could  prove  a  legitimate 
descent  by  succession  from  the  true  priesthood, 
there  was  no  reason  to  doubt,  that  he  would  be 
the  means  of  securing,  to  those  for  whom  he  offi- 
ciated, the  favor  and  the  benediction  of  God. 

Nor  was  the  man  of  Mount  Ephraim,  Avho  rea- 
soned thus,  the  only  one  of  his  time  who  embraced 
and  rested  on  the  same  views.  It  was  then,  and 
for  ages  afterwards  continued  to  be,  the  received 
and  favorite  doctrine  of  the  Jewish  nation,  that  a 
divine  virtue  was  deposited  for  them  in  a  particu- 
lar priesthood  ;  and  that  all  who  could  say,  with 
truth,  "  we  have  Abraham  to  our  father,"  were 
secure  as  to  their  hope  of  acceptance  with  God. — 
When  their  Messiah  came,  he  labored  to  dissipate 
the  mists  of  this  delusion ;  and  characterized  the 
persons  who,  without  personal  piety,  were  thus 
depending  upon  their  priesthood  for  salvation,  as 
a  "  generation  of  vipers,"  who  were  not  likely  to 
*' escape  the  damnation  of  hell."  A  leading  ob- 
ject of  his  teaching  was,  to  establish  the  hopes  of 
the  human  soul  upon  other  and  different  grounds. 
He  made  repentance  for  sin,  and  faith  in  himself, 
2 


14  DISCOURSES    ON 

as  "  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin 
of  the  world,"  the  only  door  of  admission  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven ;  and  declared  all,  who  entered 
by  this  door,  to  be  the  true  sheep,  without  stopping 
to  inquire,  by  what  ministry  their  admission  was 
procured.  Of  the  same  tenor,  were  all  the  in- 
structions of  his  apostles,  after  his  ascension,  both 
by  word  and  epistle.  Their  constant  effort  was, 
to  draw  away  the  minds  of  men  from  all  external 
grounds  of  hope  towards  God,  and  to  fix  their  re- 
liance exclusively  upon  faith,  as  appropriating  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  and  leading  by  conse- 
quence to  a  life  of  holy  activity  in  the  service  of 
God.  These  instructions  were  not  without  their 
effect,  at  the  time ;  and,  for  a  while  afterwards, 
their  fruits  were  visible,  in  the  eminently  spirit- 
ual character  which  the  church  maintained,  and 
exhibited  to  the  surrounding  Avorld.  But,  although 
the  old  leaven  was  thus  restrained  in  its  operation 
for  a  time,  it  was  not  destroyed ;  and,  very  soon 
after  the  death  of  the  Apostles,  it  began  to  show 
itself,  in  the  prevalence  of  the  same  sentiments  re- 
specting the  christian  ministry,  which  had  before 
prevailed  in  reference  to  the  Jewish  priesthood. 
Spiritual  piety  was  again  lost  sight  of,  while  the 
religion  of  forms  was  unduly  exalted.  A  change 
obtained,  in  this  respect,  which  increased  from 
century  to  century,  until  it  became  the  received 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  15 

doctrine  over  more  than  half  the  world,  that  the 
only  authorized  hope  of  salvation  Avas  in  connec- 
tion with  a  ministry  constituted  in  a  particular  way 
— that,  of  this  ministry,  the  occupant  of  the  Papal 
throne  was  the  visible  and  supreme  head,  upon 
earth — and  that,  beyond  the  pale  of  its  influences 
and  virtues,  men  had  reason  to  expect  nothing,  but 
the  curse  of  God,  both  in  this  world,  and  the 
world  to  come. 

During  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  the  prin- 
ciple of  this  error  was  again  searched  out,  and  ex- 
posed. The  light  of  truth  was  made  to  shine  up- 
on it,  revealing  its  deformities  and  dangers  ;  and 
the  minds  of  men  were  called  back  to  the  true  na- 
ture of  religion,  as  consisting  in  immediate  person- 
al intercourse  with  God,  through  the  atonement 
and  intercession  of  Christ.  Over  extensive  regions 
of  Christendom,  the  influence  of  this  reformation 
extended,  with  the  rapidity  of  light  :  the  system  of 
formality  and  superstition,  which  had  been  gather- 
ing strength  for  ages,  was  assailed  with  success : 
and,  in  general,  the  march  of  improvement  has 
been  onward,  from  the  days  of  Luther  until  now. 
In  the  mean  time,  it  is  true,  the  symptoms  of  a  re- 
lapse have  been  often  seen,  to  a  limited  extent,  in 
particular  places.  The  tendency  in  human  na- 
ture, to  rely  more  upon  the  forms  than  the  spirit- 
ualities of  religion,  has  never  disappeared  entire- 


16  DISCOURSES    ON 

ly.  And  the  signs  of  the  times  now  are,  that,  un- 
der the  guidance  and  propelling  force  of  this  ten- 
dency, another  retrograde  movement  is  about  to 
be  witnessed  on  a  large  scale — that  the  old  error  of 
connecting  the  hope  of  salvation  exclusively  with 
a  particular  ministry,  is  destined  to  reign  else- 
where than  within  the  visible  limits  of  the  Papal 
dominion — that  its  dark  shadow,  and  its  bhghting 
influence,  are  likely  to  extend  over  an  important 
branch  of  the  Protestant  Church — and  its  work  of 
mischief  upon  the  souls  of  men,  to  form  a  conspi- 
cuous feature  of  the  times,  through  w^hich  we  are 
now  passing. 

To  CHARACTERIZE  this  crror,  in  the  form  in 
which  I  propose  to  examine  it — to  furnish  you 
with  some  evidence  of  its  existence,  and  increas- 
ing prevalence — and  to  exhibit  some  of  the  rea- 
sons why  its  examination  seems  to  be  called  for, 
under  existing  circumstances — is  all  that  I  pro- 
pose, farther,  to  accomplish,  at  the  present  time. 

In  setting  forth  the  doctrine  of  Apostolical 
Succession,  as  involving  the  error  to  which  I  have 
just  referred,  I  shall  rely,  mainly,  upon  the  state- 
ments of  its  own  advocates.  They  shall  speak 
for  themselves.  And,  from  their  exposition  of 
their  own  views,  it  will  appear — that  membership 
in  the  church  of  Christ,  together  with  a  scriptur- 
al hope  of  salvation,  depends  upon  a  mere  forma- 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  17 

lity.  Their  scheme  is,  that  there  cannot  be  a 
church  of  Christ,  excepting  in  connection  Avith  a 
Hierarchy,  the  orders  of  which  are  Bishops, 
Priests,  and  Deacons — that  Bishops,  who  are  the 
superior  order,  are  the  only  persons  who  have  the 
power  of  perpetuating  a  christian  ministry — that 
this  power  belongs  to  them,  by  virtue  of  their  de- 
scent from  the  Apostles,  by  an  unbroken  line  of 
succession — that  a  true  ministry  and  church  are, 
therefore,  to  be  found,  only  in  connection  with  the 
Prelatical  Episcopacy  of  this,  and  of  other  coun- 
tries— and,  of  course,  that  none,  who  have  not  re- 
ceived Episcopal  ordination,  have  any  right  to  re- 
gard themselves  as  called  by  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  either  to  preach  his  gospel,  or  to  admin- 
ister the  ordinances  of  his  house.  "Our  Bishops," 
they  say,  ''  are  successors  of  the  Apostles ;  and 
we,  as  ordained  by  them,  share  in  the  succession, 
and  are  therefore  the  authorized  teachers  of  God's 
word,  and  the  administrators  of  his  sacraments." — 
"  The  only  ministrations  to  which  the  Lord  has 
promised  his  presence,  are  those  of  the  Bishops, 
who  are  successors  of  the  first  commissioned  Apos- 
tles, and  the  other  clergy,  acting  under  their  sanc- 
tion, and  by  their  authority." — "  The  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  can  only  be  administered, 
by  ministers  duly  ordained  ;  and,  therefore,  it  is 
needful  to  continue  in  a  church,  professing  an 
2* 


18  DISCOURSES    ON 

Apostolical  succession." — "  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons,  alone,  can  administer  Christ's  sacraments 
and  ordinances." — "  The  real  ground  of  our  au- 
thority, is  our  apostolical  descent." — "An  unin- 
terrupted series  of  valid  ordinations,  has  carried 
down  the  Apostohcal  succession,  in  our  churches, 
to  the  present  day"  ;  and  "  we  must  necessarily 
consider  none  ordained,  who  are  not  thus  ordain- 
ed." 

These  declarations  are  selected  from  different 
authors  ;  and  they  are  sufficiently  explicit,  not  on- 
ly, as  presenting  the  true  notion  of  the  succession 
scheme,  but,  also,  as  exhibiting  its  exclusive,  and 
unchurching  character.  As  this  is  a  point,  how- 
ever, of  great  importance,  in  the  discussion  on 
which  we  are  entering,  and,  as  I  am  anxious  that 
no  doubt  should  remain  upon  your  minds  in  rela- 
tion to  it,  you  will  bear  Avith  me,  in  the  recital  of 
some  other  testimonies,  from  the  same,  or  from 
kindred  sources.  And,  that  you  may  not  regard 
me,  as  calhngup  from  the  dead,  the  narrow-mind- 
edness and  bigotry  of  other  and  darker  ages,  I 
shall  confine  myself,  mainly,  to  the  writings  and 
sayings  of  persons,  who  are  now  living,  or  whose 
memory  is  still  fresh,  in  the  minds  of  the  intelli- 
gent and  reading  public  : — in  the  first  place,  to 
authors  of  other  countries ;  and,  in  the  second 
place,  to  those  of  our  own. 


X 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  19 


In  the  far-famed  series  of  publications,  known 
as  the  Oxford  Tracts,  we  find  such  language  as 
the  following  :  "  Episcopal  authority,  is  the  very 
bond  which  unites  christians  to  each  other,  and  to 
Christ." — "  Christ  never  appointed  two  ways  to 
heaven  ;  nor  did  he  build  a  church  to  save  some, 
and  make  another  institution  to  save  other  men. 
There  is  no  other  name,  given  under  heaven  a- 
mong  men,  whereby  we  may  be  saved,  but  the 
name  of  Jesus  ;  and  that  is  no  otherwise  given 
under  heaven,  than  in  the  church." — "  It  is  not 
merely  because  Episcopacy  is  a  better,  or  more 
scriptural  form  than  Presbyterianism,  (true  as  this 
may  be  in  itself,)  that  Episcopalians  are  right,  and 
Presbyterians  are  WTong,  but  because  the  Presby- 
terian ministers  have  assumed  a  power,  which  was 
never  intrusted  to  them.  They  have  presumed 
to  exercise  the  powxr  of  ordination,  and  to  perpe- 
tuate a  succession  of  ministers,  without  having  re- 
ceived a  commission  to  do  so." — "  A  person,  not 
commissioned  from  the  Bishop,  may  use  the 
words  of  baptism,  and  sprinkle,  or  bathe,  with 
the  w^ater  on  earth  ;  but  there  is  no  promise  from 
Christ,  that  such  a  man  shall  admit  souls  to  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  A  person,  not  commission- 
ed, may  break  bread,  and  pour  out  wine,  and  pre- 
tend to  give  the  Lord's  supper,  but  it  can  afford 
no  comfort  to  any  to  receive  it  at  his  hands,  be- 


20  DISCOURSES    ON 

cause  there  is  no  warrant  from  Christ,  to  lead 
communicants  to  suppose,  that,  while  he  does  so 
here  upon  earth,  they  will  be  partakers  in  the  Sa- 
viour's heavenly  body  and  blood.  And,  as  for 
the  person  himself,  who  takes  upon  himself,  with- 
out warrant,  to  minister  in  holy  things,  he  is,  all 
the  while,  treading'  in  the  footsteps  of  Korah,  Da- 
than,  and  Abiram,  ivhose  aivful  punishment  you 
read  of  in  the  Book  of  Number s^  No.  35, 
p.  2,  3. 

In  an  article  in  the  British  Critic,  for  October, 
1839,  the  conductors  of  the  work  say, — "  We  are 
of  THE  Church — not  of  the  Episcopal  Church — 
our  bishops  are  not  merely  an  order  in  her  organi- 
zation, but  the  principle  of  her  continuance  ;  and 
to  call  ourselves  Episcopalians,  is  to  imply,  that 
we  differ  from  the  mass  of  dissenters  mainly  in 
church  government  and  form ;  whereas  the  dif- 
ference is,  that  we  are  here,  and  they  are  there : 
we  in  the  church,  and  they  out  of  it." 

From  a  work,  entitled,  A  Doctrinal  Catechism 
of  the  Church  of  England,  &c.,  the  following 
questions  and  answers,  as  bearing  upon  the  same 
point,  are  extracted.  "  Who  appoints  dissenting 
teachers  ?  They  either  wickedly  appoint  each 
other,  or  are  not  appointed  at  all ;  and  so,  in  eith- 
er case,  their  assuming  the  office  is  very  wicked. — 
But,  are  not  dissenting  teachers  thought  to  be  very 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  21 

good  men?  They  are  often  thought  to  be  such, 
and  so  were  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  till  God 
showed  them  to  be  very  wicked. — But,  may  we 
not  hear  them  preach?  No  ;  for  God  says,  ^ De- 
part from  the  tents  of  these  luicked  men.''  "* 

Palmer,  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Chnrch,  speaking 
of  the  Presbyterians  of  Scotland,  and  of  their  re- 
jection of  Episcopacy,  says,  "  All  the  temporal 
enactments  and  powers  of  the  whole  world  could 
not  cure  this  fault,  nor  render  them  a  portion  of 
the  Church  of  Christ,''''  Again,  he  says  of  non- 
episcopal  churches  generally,  "  Of  these  com- 
munities, whether  collectively  or  individually  con- 
sidered, I  affirm,  that  they  are  no  part  of  the 
Church  of  Christ^ — ''  They  are  human  societies. 
The  will  of  man  makes  them,  regulates  them,  un- 
makes them.  They  are,  in  a  word,  purely  volun- 
tary associations,  and,  therefore,  cannot  be  any 
part  of  that  church,  which  is  formed  by  the  divine 
command." — "  They,  and  their  generations,  are 
AS  THE  HEATHEN ;  and,  though  we  may  have  rea- 
son to  believe,  that  many  of  their  descendants  are 
not  obstinate  in  their  errors,  still,  it  seems  to  me, 
that  ice  are  not  warranted  in  affirming  absolutely 
that  they  can  be  saved.''  Vol.  i.  pp.  110,  399,  407. 

Dr.  Hook,  the  present  vicar  of  Leeds,  discour- 
ses, in  this  manner — "  Unless  Christ  be  spiritual- 

*  See  Smyth  on  Ap.  Sue. :  p.  128. 


22  DISCOURSES    ON 

ly  present  with  the  ministers  of  religion,  in  their 
services,  those  services  will  be  vain  ;  but  the  only 
ministrations,  to  which  he  has  promised  his  pre- 
sence, are  those  of  Bishops,  who  are  successors  to 
the  first  commissioned  apostles,  and  to  the  other 
clergy,  acting  under  their  sanction,  and  by  their 
authority." 

And  now,  that  you  may  not  suppose,  that  these 
unchurching  views  prevail,  exclusively,  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  I  invite  your  attention 
to  some  specimens  of  the  style  of  writing,  on  the 
same  subject,  which  is  becoming  every  day  more 
common,  in  our  own  country.  Dr.  Howe  says, 
in  his  Vindication  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church — "Well,  the  supposition  is,  that  Christ 
established  distinct  grades  of  ministers,  and  con- 
ferred upon  the  highest  grade  the  exclusive  pow- 
er of  ordaining.  When  a  minister  of  the  highest 
grade,  then,  ordains,  Christ  ordains  ;  Avhen  a  min- 
ister of  the  second  grade  ordains,  it  is  not  Christ 
that  ordains,  but  man.  Thus  Episcopal  ordina- 
tion confers  the  sacerdotal  office  ;  Presbyterial  or- 
dination does  not.  If,  therefore,  the  former  or- 
dination be  laid  aside,  and  the  latter  be  substitut- 
ed in  its  place,  the  sacerdotal  office  must  cease  to 
exist ;  and,  as  there  can  be  no  church  without  a 
ministry,  the  church  must  cease  to  exist  also." — 
P.  354. 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  23 

Bishop  Hobart,  in  his  Companion  for  the  Altar, 
says — "  The  Judge  of  the  whole  earth,  indeed, 
will  do  right.  The  grace  of  God  quickens  and 
animates  all  the  degenerate  children  of  Adam. 
The  mercy  of  the  Saviour  is  co-extensive  with  the 
ruin  into  which  sin  has  plunged  mankind.  And, 
*  in  every  nation,  he  that  feareth  God,  and  work- 
eth  righteousness,  is  accepted  of  him.'  But,  where 
the  gospel  is  proclaimed,  communion  with  the 
church,  by  the  participation  of  its  ordinances,  at 
the  hands  of  the  duly  authorized  priesthood,  is  the 
indispensable  condition  of  salvation,^''     P.  202. 

In  an  address  on  unity,  delivered  not  long  since 
by  the  Bishop  of  the  Eastern  Diocese  of  New 
York,  we  are  told,  that  "  none  but  the  Bishops  can 
unite  us  to  the  Father,  in  the  way  of  Christ's  ap- 
pointment ;  and  these  Bishops  must  be  such,  as 
receive  their  mission  from  the  first  commissioned 
Apostles." 

In  a  Treatise  on  Apostolical  Succession,  pub- 
lished and  circulated  by  the  Episcopal  Tract  So- 
ciety, tiiere  is  a  passage,  which  runs  thus — "  The 
Church  of  England  holds,  that  the  commission 
and  authority  for  ministering  in  the  name  of  God, 
has  been  transmitted  from  the  Apostles,  by  what 
is  called  Episcopal  Succession  :  that  is  to  say, 
that  the  Apostles  left  the  power,  which  they  had 
received  from  Christ,  to  govern  the  churches,  and 


24  DISCOURSES    ON 

to  preach  the  gospel,  and  to  administer  the  sa- 
craments, and  to  ordain  other  clergy  to  assist  in  all 
these  duties,  in  the  hands  of  a  certain  class  of 
chief  pastors  (to  whom  in  very  early  times  the 
term  Bishop  was  appropriated  ;)  that  this  power 
and  commission  has  been  handed  down  in  the 
church,  from  their  time  till  now,  by  Bishops  or- 
daining Bishops  ;  and  that  none,  ivho  have  not  re- 
ceived Episcopal  ordination  are  laivful  ministers 
of  the  church,  or  ivarranted  to  perform  any  acts, 
in  the  name,  or  with  the  authority  of  God^ 

In  a  sermon,  recently  delivered  and  published 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  the  author  speaks  in  the 
following  manner.  He  refers  to  the  Church  of 
England,  as  having  given  to  the  world  our  accept- 
ed version  of  the  Bible  ;  and,  in  the  progress  of 
his  remarks  concerning  her,  says — "  She  must 
preach  to  you  the  Word,  and  nothing  else — she 
must  administer  to  you,  according  to  the  record 
of  her  own  testimony,  which  you  hold  in  your 
hands.  Within  these  prescribed  boundaries,  her 
power  is  absolute  over  you,  so  long  as  you  re- 
main in  her  communion — a  commiinion  ivhich 
you  cannot  renounce,  excepting'  at  the  peril  of  your 
salvation.''^ 

The  following  passages  are  extracted,  from  a 
work  by  Rev.  Palmer  Dyer  of  Whitehall.  "  No 
religious  society,  or  communion,  of  whatever  de- 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  25 

nomination  or  character,  is  a  church  of  Christ, 
unless  it  be  Episcopal." — "  We  cannot  be  brought 
into  the  holy  covenant,  except  in  an  Episcopal 
church,  or  by  the  agency  of  an  Episcopal  minis- 
try.'— "  Those  who  profess  to  be  ministers  of  the 
Gospel,  without  having  received  Episcopal  ordi- 
nation, possess  no  more  ministerial  authority 
than  any  private  christian." — ''  Their  supposed 
commission  is  a  nullity.  And,  still  farther,  it  is 
worse  than  a  nullity :  it  involves  the  guilt  of 
schism  and  rebellion." — "  Those  who  separate 
from  the  Episcopal  church,  reviling  and  opposing 
it,  and  connecting  themselves  with  anti-Episcopal 
sects,  are,  in  fact,  fighting  against  God." — "  We 
can  have  no  felloivship  ivith  non-Episcopal  sects, 
nor  ever  pretend  to  receive  christian  sacraments 
from  them  :  they  have  no  real  sacraments  to  give.''' 
If  it  were  necessary,  I  might  occupy  your  atten- 
tion, for  hours,  in  producing  extracts  of  a  similar 
kind.  These  are  but  specimens  of,  what  are  now, 
the  every-day  productions,  both  of  the  pulpit  and 
the  press.  And  they  are  surely  enough,  to  satis- 
fy the  most  sceptical,  that,  in  one  point  at  least, 
we  are  fast  falling  back  upon  the  times  of  popish 
bigotry  and  intolerance.  I  shall  indulge  in  no 
comments  upon  the  language  of  these  quotations, 
for  the  purpose  of  showing,  that  the  views  which 
they  express  are  exclusive,  and  do  unchurch  the 
3 


2Q  DISCOURSES    ON 

non-Episcopal  denominations  of  this,  and  of  other 
countries.  This  is  so  plain,  that  any  attempt  to 
prove  it,  would  be  an  insult  to  your  understand- 
ings. I  may  remind  you,  however,  that,  in  full 
conformity  with  the  spirit  of  the  foregoing  decla- 
rations, the  Episcopal  Church  is  now  called,  ex- 
clusively, THE  CHURCH.  We  read,  both  in 
official  communications,  and  in  newspaper  para- 
graphs, of  "the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,"  "the 
Bishop  of  Pennsylvania,"  &c.;  and,  in  the  Church 
Almanac,  of  the  "  Dioceses  of  the  Church  of  the 
United  States.^^  True  to  the  import  of  these  ti- 
tles, we  also  find,  that  the  use  of  the  word 
"  Church,"  as  applied  to  other  denominations,  is 
carefully  avoided.  They  are  called  dissenters, 
schismatics,  sectaries,  societies,  communions,  but 
never  Churches — the  clear  import  of  which  is,  that 
those,  who  are  thus  designated,  have  no  fellow- 
citizenship  with  the  saints,  and  no  connection  with 
the  household  of  God.  And  yet,  it  is  a  fact,  that 
we  are  gravely  told,  by  some  of  the  advocates  of 
these  High-Church  claims,  that  thei/  do  not  un- 
church us — that  we  unchurch  ourselves.  '  The 
door  of  the  Church,'  they  say,  'is  open,  and  you 
are  not  only  at  liberty,  but  are  invited,  to  enter — 
we  are  so  far  from  having  no  charity  for  you,  that 
we  should  be  glad,  at  any  moment,  to  receive  you 
—if  you  are  excluded,  therefore,  it  is  not  by  us-you 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  27 

are  shut  out  by  an  act  of  your  own.'  Most  kindly 
and  compassionately  spoken  !  So  reasons  the 
Man  of  Sin,  while  ''drunk  with  the  blood  of  the 
saints."  It  is  the  very  essence  of  the  charity  of  Po- 
pery to  say,  'We  are  the  Church-out  of  the  Church 
there  is  no  salvation — we  open  our  arms  to  em- 
brace you — and,  if  you  will  enter  our  fold,  and  be 
submissive  to  our  claims,  all  will  be  well.  If  you 
resist  and  rebel,  we  do,  indeed,  pronounce  our 
anathema  upon  you — we  send  your  body  to  the 
stake,  and  your  soul  to  perdition  '.—but  remember, 
this  is  your  work  and  not  ours  ! — yoa  die  by  your 
own  hand — and  the  sin  of  your  perdition  must  lie 
upon  your  own  head  !'  Whether  such  charity  is 
"from  above,"  or  whether  it  is  "  earthly,  sensual, 
and  deviUsh,^^  is  a  question,  which,  in  your  pre- 
sence, I  need  not  discuss. 

Having  thus  defined  the  doctrine  of  Apostolical 
Succession,  and  the  position  taken  by  its  advo- 
cates, with  respect  to  other  denominations  of 
christians,  I  regard  it  as  proper,  to  advert  to  some 
of  the  REASONS,  for  calling  your  attention  to  it,  in 
the  public  manner  in  which  I  propose  to  examine 
it. 

And,  here,  allow  me  to  say,  that  I  am  not  urg- 
ed to  this  examination,  by  any  feeling'  of  jealousy , 
or  wikindness,  towards  the  Episcopal  Church. 
With  those  who  belong  to  this  communion,  con- 


28  DISCOURSES    ON 

sidered  as  one,  among  other  denominations  of 
professing  christians,  we  have  no  controversy. 
In  the  case  of  those  Episcopalians,  v\^ho  are  w^il- 
ling  to  meet  us  on  the  ground  of  a  common  Chris- 
tianity, instead  of  casting  us  out  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  on  account  of  a  difference  in  external  forms, 
we  had  rather  strengthen,  than  do  any  thing  to 
weaken,  the  bonds  of  union.  For  all  such,  we 
have  the  right  hand  of  an  undissembled  and  cor- 
dial fellowship  ;  and  their  preferences  for  Episco- 
pacy, above  other  forms  of  church  polity,  we 
should  never  feel  ourselves  called  upon  to  assail. 
"We  have  no  sympathy  Avith  those,  who  are  ever 
active  in  disturbing  others  in  the  quiet  and  peacea- 
ble enjoyment  of  their  christian  liberty  and  rights. 
We  accord  to  all  men  the  same  privilege,  in  this 
respect,  which  we  claim  for  ourselves  ;  and  can 
sincerely  rejoice,  in  all  the  success  which  attends 
the  efforts  of  those,  who  differ  from  us  in  modes 
and  forms,  in  promoting  the  general  interests  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ.  We  beg  you,  therefore, 
to  understand  and  remember,  throughout  this 
discussion,  that  we  wage  no  aggressive  war- 
fare upon  the  territory  and  rights  of  the  Episcopal 
church.  Our  concern  is  not  with  this  denomina- 
tion as  such,  but  only  with  the  unwarrantable  as- 
sumptions of  a  part  of  those  who  belong  to  it.  And, 
even  with  respect  to  them,  we  propose  to  do  noth- 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  29 

iiig  more  than  stand  on  the  defensive.  They  have 
excluded  us  from  the  Chm'ch  of  Christ ;  and  we 
ask  the  privilege  of  showing,  that  this  sentence  of 
exclusion  is  without  authority.  They  have  said, 
*'  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  the  temple  of  the  Lord 
are?^e;"  and  we  wish  to  prove,  that  we  have 
some  right  to  a  place  in  this  temple,  as  well  as 
themselves. 

I  pass,  now,  to  remark, 

1.  That  we  find  a  sufficient  reason  for  engag- 
ing in  this  discussion,  in  the  character  of  the  doc- 
trine, which  we  propose  to  examine.  It  proceeds, 
as  we  have  seen,  upon  the  assumption,  that  all 
professing  Christians,  who  are  unconnected  with 
Prelatical  Bishops,  considered  as  the  lineal  de- 
scendants of  the  Apostles,  areas  widely  separat- 
ed from  the  Church  of  Christ  as  the  heathen — 
have  no  interest  in  the  covenanted  mercy  of  God 
— and  are,  therefore,  in  such  a  situation,  that  ''we 
are  not  warranted  in  affirming,  absolutely,  that 
they  can  he  saved.^^  And  this,  we  alledge,  is  al- 
together, and  without  qualification,  a  monstrous 
assumption — involving  a  breach  of  Christian  cha- 
rity, too  outrageous,  to  be  tolerated  in  silence. 
"  To  unchurch" — says  a  late  eloquent  writer  of 
our  own  country — "with  a  dash  of  the  pen,  all 
the  non-Episcopal  denominations  under  heaven  ; 
and  cast  their  members,  indiscriminately,  into  a 
3* 


30  DISCOURSES    ON 

condition  worse  than  that  of  the  very  heathen,  is, 
to  say  the  least  of  it,  a  most  dreadful  excommuni- 
cation ;  and,  if  not  clearly  enjoined  by  the  author- 
ity of  God,  as  criminal  as  it  is  dreadful.  That 
all  those  glorious  Churches,  which  have  flourished 
in  Geneva,  Holland,  France,  Scotland,  England, 
Ireland,  &c.,  since  the  Reformation;  and  all 
which  have  spread,  and  are  spreading,  through 
this  vast  Continent — that  those  heroes  of  the  truth, 
who,  though  they  bowed  not  to  the  mitre,  rescued 
millions  from  the  Man  of  Sin,  lighted  up  the  lamp 
of  genuine  religion,  and  left  it  burning  with  a 
pure  and  steady  flame  to  the  generation  following 
■ — that  all  those  faithful  ministers,  and  all  those 
private  christians,  who,  though  not  of  the  hierar- 
chy, adorned  the  doctrine  of  God  their  Saviour, 
living  in  faith,  dying  in  faith ;  scores,  hundreds, 
thousands  of  them  going  away  to  their  Father's 
house,  under  the  strong  consolations  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  with  anticipated  heaven  in  their  hearts, 
and  its  hallelujahs  on  their  lips — that  all,  all  were 
without  the  pale  of  the  visible  Church ;  were  des- 
titute of  covenanted  grace;  and  left  the  world 
without  any  chance  for  eternal  life,  but  that  un- 
pledged, unpromised  mercy,  which  their  accusers 
charitably  hope  may  be  extended  to  such  as  labor 
under  involuntary  or  unavoidable  error  ;  and  this, 
merely  because  they  renounced  Episcopacy — are 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  31 

positions  of  such  deep-toned  horror  as  may  well 
make  our  hair  stand  up,  '  like  quills  upon  the  fret- 
ful porcupine;'  and  freeze  the  warm  blood  at  its 
fountain."* 

And  who  is  there,  here,  that  does  not  respond 
from  the  heart,  to  the  sentiment  expressed,  in  this 
elevated  and  glowing  language  ?  Is  there  one,  of 
all  the  large  audience  which  I  address,  who  is  not 
prepared  to  say,  in  the  outset,  that  the  system 
which  draws  after  it  such  consequences  as  these, 
must  be  unscriptural  and  false  ;  and  deserves  to  be 
held  up,  publicly  and  formally,  to  the  universal 
abhorrence  and  execration  of  the  christian  mind  ? 

2.  It  seems  proper,  that  pubKc  attention  should 
be  turned  to  the  revival  of  this  exclusive  spirit,  as 
being  a  most  remarkable  feature  of  the  present 
times — a  feature  too  prominent  and  peculiar,  to 
be  overlooked,  or  regarded  with  indilTerence.  If 
there  is  any  hope  for  the  world,  in  reference  to 
the  spread  of  evangelical  piety,  it  must  certainly 
rest,  in  a  great  measure,  so  far  as  the  instrumen- 
tality is  concerned,  upon  the  Christians  of  Great 
Britain,  and  America.  These  are  the  main  foun- 
tains, from  which  the  streams  of  civilization  and 
Christianity  must  be  expected  to  flow.  They  are 
the  nations,  that  come  into  most  frequent  contact 
with  the  barbarous  parts  of  the  earth,  in  the  pur- 
suits of  trade  and  commerce  ;  and  they  are  doing 

*  Dr.  J.  M.  Mason. 


32  DISCOURSES    ON 

a  large  proportion  of  all  that  is  now  in  progress 
— in  circulating  the  word  of  God — in  sending 
missionaries  to  the  heathen — and  in  keeping  all 
the  kindred  influences  in  operation,  that  have  the 
best  interests  of  the  world  in  view.  Now,  that  a 
large  and  influential  portion  of  the  professedly 
Christian  community  of  these  two  countries,  un- 
der the  advancing  light  and  liberty  of  this  age, 
should  revive  and  rally  around  the  assumption, 
that  they  alone  are  the  Church  of  Christ — that  all 
ministries,  differently  constituted  from  theirs,  are 
essentially  irregular  and  invalid — and  that  all  who 
attend  upon  them,  however  circumspect  and  god- 
ly their  lives  may  be,  are  not  in  possession  of  a 
scriptural  hope  of  salvation — is  so  entirely  aside 
from  any  thing,  that  might  naturally  have  been 
expected,  that  we  may  well  inquire.  What  can  it 
mean  ?  We  can  account  for  it,  that  an  inhabi- 
tant of  the  Celestial  Empire  should  look  upon  all 
other  nations  as  outside  barbarians  :  because  the 
education  of  his  country  has  never  taught  him  a 
diff'erent  lesson.  And  we  can  account  for  it,  in  a 
similar  way,  that  a  follower  of  the  false  Prophet 
should  look  with  disdain  upon  those  whom  he  re- 
gards as  Christian  dogs,  and  turn  away  from  them 
as  unfit  to  be  associated  with  him  in  the  hope  of 
future  felicity.  But  that  men,  brought  up  in  the 
lap   of  Christianity,  in  the  purest   state  in  which 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  33 

it  is  known  to  exist,  and  called  m  the  providence 
of  God  to  take  so  prominent  a  part  in  the  further- 
ance of  its  interests,  should  so  far  mistake  its  true 
genius  and  spirit,  as  to  think  of  confining  it  with- 
in the  frame-work  of  a  particular  external  organi- 
zation and  of  casting  out  all  who  are  beyond 
this  inclosure  from  any  fellowship  with  them  in 
the  faith  and  comfort  of  the  gospel,  is  indeed 
worthy  of  being  contemplated  as  a  moral  wonder. 
It  savors,  too  much,  of  the  spirit  of  the  darkest 
age  the  world  ever  saw,  to  have  a  fit  place  iu  the 
century,  through  which  we  are  passing.  And, 
considered  as  clogging  the  wheels  of  that  chariot, 
which  is  carrying  life  and  salvation  to  the  ends  of 
the  earth,  it  deserves,  not  only  our  deliberate  no- 
tice, but  our  intelhgent  and  decided  condemnation. 
3.  We  find  a  reason  for  this  discussion,  in  the 
fact,  that  it  never  can  be  right  to  submit^  untliGut 
resistance^  to  attempts  that  are  made,  from  any 
quarter,  to  deprive  us  of  our  dearest  rights  and 
privileges.  In  respect  to  social  and  civil  immuni- 
ties, we  all  understand  this  principle,  sufficiently 
well.  Let  an  attempt  be  made,  even  by  the  pub- 
lication of  a  theory,  to  undermine  the  founda- 
tion of  our  title  to  the  property  we  possess,  or  the 
places  of  trust  and  influence  we  occupy,  and  we 
are  ready,  at  once,  to  meet  the  aggressor,  with 
the  keenest  weapons  of  truth  and  argument  we 


34  DISCOURSES    ON 

know  how  to  employ.  But,  what  are  the  inter- 
ests endangered  in  such  a  case,  when  compared 
with  what  I,  and  most  of  you^  must  lose,  if  the 
lofty  claims,  involved  in  the  succession  scheme, 
are  admitted  ?  The  consequence  must  be,  that  I 
am  a  usurper  of  the  place  which  I  occupy,  and 
that  you  are  fightmg  against  the  institutions  of 
God,  in  giving  countenance  to  those  ministrations, 
on  which  you  attend.  And  is  all  this  to  be  borne, 
without  a  word  to  show  that  this  disfranchising 
and  merciless  system  is  as  entirely  unsupported 
by  evidence,  as  it  is  extraordinary  in  its  charac- 
ter ?  If  our  immunities,  as  those  who  have  ab- 
jured the  authority  of  all  hierarchies,  both  in 
Church  and  in  State,  are  worth  having,  they  are 
worth  defending;  and  if  we  suffer  them  to  be 
wrested  from  us,  without  a  struggle,  we  incur  the 
same  reproach,  which  was  due  to  him,  ''  who,  for 
one  morsel  of  meat,  sold  his  birthright." 

4.  Some  notice  of  tlie  doctrine,  which  we  pro- 
pose to  discuss,  is  demanded,  by  the  jjresent  pos- 
lure  of  the  public  mind  in  relation  to  it.  The 
christian  community,  of  all  Protestant  denomina- 
tions, are  in  the  attitude  of  inquiry.  Various 
events,  of  recent  occurrence,  both  at  home  and 
abroad,  have  awakened  their  attention — their  ears 
are  open — and  many,  even  of  those  who  are  too 
well  established  to  be  in  danger  of  yielding  to  the 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  35 

claims  of  the  unchurching  system,  would  like,  nev- 
ertheless, to  see  its  absurdity  exposed,  the  argu- 
ments against  it  presented  inform,  and  the  grounds 
of  a  contrary  belief  made  plain,  from  such  sources 
of  evidence  as  are  accessible,  but  which,  a  large 
proportion  of  the  community,  are  not  likely  to 
seek  and  obtain  for  themselves.  This  demand, 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  pulpit,  as  well  as  of  the  press, 
to  supply.  A  work  is  thus  assigned  to  the  pas- 
tors of  the  churches,  which  they  cannot,  in  faith- 
fulness, refuse  to  perform.  There  is  a  call  for 
information,  to  which  it  is  their  duty  to  respond. 

5.  Once  more,  it  is  meet  that  the  bold  preten- 
sions of  this  system  should  be  discussed,  in  our 
popular  christian  assemblies  ;  because,  if  fre- 
quently 7' ep  eat  ed  in  the  public  ear,  without  being 
contradicted.)  there  is  real  danger,  that  many  loill 
receive  and  embrace  them.  A  story  often  told,  es- 
pecially if  told  with  an  air  of  sincerity  and  confi- 
dence, is  likely,  for  this  reason  alone,  to  be  believ- 
ed, however  slender  the  evidence  on  which  it 
rests.  And  who  can  doubt,  that  we  are,  and  have 
been  for  years,  exposed  to  the  operation  of  this 
principle,  as  connected  with  the  present  subject? 
The  pulpit,  in  certain  quarters,  is  the  constant 
vehicle  of  discussions,  which  are  intended  to  show, 
that  the  existence  of  the  Church  of  Christ  depends 
upon  a  particular  form  of  ministerial  ordination, 


36  DISCOURSES    ON 

while,  from  those  who  are  banished,  by  this  doc- 
trine, from  all  visible  connexion  with  the  family  of 
God,  there  comes  no  voice  of  objection,  of  remon- 
strance, or  of  self-defence.  You  may  sit,  for 
years,  under  the  preaching  of  a  non-Episcopal 
ministry,  without  hearing  a  word  in  opposition  to 
this  assumption,  or  in  maintenance  of  the  contra- 
ry truth.  And,  if  there  must  be  an  extreme,  this 
is  undoubtedly  the  one  to  be  preferred.  If  others 
err,  in  saying  too  much  about  the  forms  of  reli- 
gion, let  it  be  our  distinction,  that  we  dwell,  main- 
ly, on  its  doctrinal  substance,  and  its  practical 
power.  But  still,  it  is  not  right,  that  this  un- 
churching process  should  go  on,  forever,  without 
being  noticed,  in  the  way  of  refutation  and  rebuke. 
If  it  does,  there  is  good  reason  to  apprehend,  that 
some  will  suppose  Ave  are  silent,  because  we  have 
nothing  to  say,  in  justification  of  our  own  position. 
And  this,  I  am  persuaded,  will  absolve  me,  in 
your  estimation,  from  the  charge  of  over-stepping 
the  line  of  my  official  duties,  while  engaged  in 
the  present  discussion.  The  subject  to  be  exam- 
ined, is  one  which  involves  my  authority  to  preach 
the  gospel ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  safety  of 
your  course,  in  consenting  to  receive  it  from  the 
lips  of  one,  on  whose  head  the  hands  of  a  spirit- 
ual hierarch  have  never  been  imposed. 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  37 


DISCOURSE  II. 


THE  DOCTRINE  BROUGHT  TO  ITS  PROPER  TEST— NO 
STARTING-POINT,  IN  SCRIPTURE,  FOR  A  LINE  OF  SUCCES- 
SION BY  PRELATES— NO  NAME  FOR  A  PRELATICAL  BISH- 
OP AMONG  THE  SCRIPTURAL  TITLES. 


Isaiah  viii.  20.     To  the  law,  and  to  the  testimony  :  if  they  speak  not 
according  to  this  word,  it  is  because  there  is  no  lighi  in  them. 

In  approaching  the  settlement  of  disputed  ques- 
tions, the  first  thing  to  be  done,  is,  to  fix  upon  the 
tribunal,  to  which  the  appeal  is  to  be  made — the 
judge,  before  whom  the  cause  is  to  be  carried — 
the  umpij'e,  whose  opinion  is  to  decide  the  case. 
In  matters,  involving  the  social  and  civil  rights  of 
men,  there  may,  sometimes,  be  a  choice,  between 
one  tribunal  and  another.  The  selection  may  de- 
pend upon  circumstances  ;  and,  especially,  upon 
consent  of  parties.  But,  in  religious  controver- 
sies, there  is  nothing,  here,  to  be  determined  by 
man — the  only  infallible  umpire  is  the  word  of 
God:  "To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony:  if 
4 


38  DISCOURSES    ON 

they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  be- 
cause there  is  no  light  in  them." 

In  theory,  it  is  not  often,  that  the  truth  and  just- 
ness of  this  position  are  called  in  question.  Al- 
most all  who  accept  the  Bible  as  a  revelation  from 
God,  profess  to  regard  it  as  the  authoritative  rule 
of  faith  and  practice.  And  yet,  even  among  them, 
there  are  ways  of  so  trenching  upon  this  rule,  in- 
directly, as,  in  a  great  measure,  to  nullify  it  in 
practice. — The  Jew,  for  instance,  will  not  deny, 
that,  in  determining  all  questions  between  him 
and  others,  the  appeal  should  be,  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament scriptures.  And,  if  this  position  were  ad- 
hered to,  without  quaUfication,  the  controversy 
between  Christianity  and  Judaism,  might  soon  be 
brought  to  a  satisfactory  issue.  But,  in  practice, 
he  brings  with  him  such  unmingled  veneration  for 
the  Apocryphal  and  Rabbinical  writings  of  his 
nation,  and  lays  so  much  stress  on  "the  traditions" 
received  from  his  fathers,  that  the  testimony  of 
scripture  is  rendered  "void,"  and  becomes  "  of 
none  effect." — In  like  manner,  the  Romish 
Church  are  free  to  profess,  that  the  Bible  is  the 
rule  of  faith,  and  that  its  declarations,  when  right- 
ly understood,  are  to  be  received  as  conclusive 
and  final.  But,  in  the  application  of  this  rule, 
they  so  insist  upon  passing  the  Bible  through  the 
crucible  of  the  Church's  interpretation,  and  upon 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION. 


^ 


adding,  by  the  authority  of  the  Church,  to  its  doc- 
trines and  institutions,  that,  in  effect,  the  meaning 
of  scripture  is  perverted  ;  and,  in  many  cases,  its 
judgment  reversed. — And,  so  it  is,  with  the  advo- 
cates and  supporters  of  the  scheme,  which  makes 
a  prelatical  succession  essential  to  the  existence 
of  a  Church.  They  are  willing  to  enter  with  us 
into  the  temple  of  divine  revelation,  and  to  have 
the  question  considered  and  determined  there ; 
but  they  insist,  at  the  same  time,  upon  our  inviting 
the  uninspired  christian  fathers  to  accompany 
us,  and  submitting  our  views,  as  to  the  meaning 
of  scripture,  to  their  correction  and  control — so 
that,  when  their  opinions  conflict  with  what  may 
seem  to  us  to  be  the  plain  import  of  the  language 
of  the  sacred  writers,  we  must  surrender  our  pri- 
vate judgment  into  their  hands  and  alloAv  them  to 
be  our  guides  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  In 
this  way,  another  rule  of  faith  than  the  word  of 
God  is  introduced,  and  becomes,  in  effect,  the 
main  ground  of  dependence;  because,  on  this 
principle,  the  controversy  must  be  decided,  not  by 
the  infallible  authority  of  inspiration,  but  by  the 
fallible  opinions  and  teachings  of  men. 

Now,  to  a  tribunal  constituted  in  this  way,  we 
cannot  consent  to  go — although,  as  you  shall  see 
hereafter,  we  are  entirely  willing  that  the  testimo- 
ny of  the  early  Christian  writers  should  be  receiv- 


40  DISCOURSES    ON 

ed,  on  this,  as  on  all  other  questions  of  fact  and 
doctrine,  for  what  it  is  worth.  As  true  Protest- 
ants, we  cannot  permit  any  human  interpreter  to 
stand  between  us  and  the  voice  of  God,  as  speak- 
ing in  the  scriptures.  In  all  matters,  essential  to 
salvation,  they  speak,  in  plain  language,  to  the 
understandings  of  plain  men.  And,  as  Ave  expect 
to  show,  the  person  who  goes  to  uninspired  tradi- 
tion to  find  out  their  meaning,  resorts  to  a  com- 
mentary, which  is  far  more  difficult  to  be  under- 
stood than  the  text.  We  adopt,  therefore,  as  de- 
fining our  position,  in  respect  to  this  point,  the  im- 
mortal declarations  of  Chillingworth,  as  contained 
in  the  following  eloquent  passage.  Speaking  of 
''the  Bible,"  and  "  the  Bible  only,"  as  ''  the  reli- 
gion of  Protestants,"  he  says — ''  I,  for  my  part, 
after  a  long  and  (as  I  verily  believe  and  hope)  im- 
partial search  of  the  true  way  to  eternal  happi- 
ness, do  profess  plainly,  that  I  cannot  find  any 
rest  for  the  sole  of  my  foot,  but  upon  this  Rock 
only.  I  see  plainly,  and  with  mine  own  eyes,  that 
there  are  popes  against  popes,  councils  against 
councils,  some  fathers  against  others,  the  same 
fathers  against  themselves,  a  consent  of  fathers  of 
one  age  against  a  consent  of  fathers  of  another 
age,  the  Church  of  one  age  against  the  Church  of 
another  age.  Traditive  interpretations  of  scrip- 
ture are  pretended,  but  there  are  few,  or  none,  to 
be  found  '.    no  tradition,  but  only  of  scripture, 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  9$. 

can  derive  itself  from  the  fountain  ;  but  may  be 
plainly  proved,  either  to  have  been  brought  in,  in 
such  an  age  after  Christ,  or  that,  in  such  an  age, 
it  was  not  brought  in.  In  a  word,  there  is  no 
sufficient  certainty,  but  of  scripture  only,  for  any 
considering  man  to  build  upon.  This,  therefore, 
and  this  only  I  have  reason  to  believe  :  this  I  will 
profess  :  according  to  this  I  will  live  :  and,  for 
this,  if  there  be  occasion,  I  will  not  only  willingly, 
but  even  gladly,  lose  my  life — though  I  should  be 
sorry,  that  Christians  should  take  it  from  me. 
Propose  me  any  thing  out  of  this  book,  and  re- 
quire whether  I  believe  it  or  no ;  and,  seem  it 
never  so  incomprehensible  to  human  reason,  I 
will  subscribe  it  with  hand  and  heart,  as  knowing 
no  demonstration  can  be  stronger  than  this — God 
hath  said  so :  therefore,  it  is  true.  In  other  things, 
I  will  take  no  man's  liberty  of  judgment  from 
him  ;  neither  shall  any  man  take  mine  from  me. 
I  will  think  no  man  the  worse  man,  nor  the  worse 
Christian  :  I  will  love  no  man  the  less,  for  differ- 
ing in  opinion  from  me.  And  what  measure  I 
mete  to  others,  I  expect  from  them  again.  I  am 
fully  assured,  that  God  does  not,  and,  therefore, 
that  men  ought  not,  to  require  more  of  any  man 
than  this — to  believe  the  scripture  to  be  God's 
word,  to  endeavor  to  find  the  true  sense  of  it,  and 
to  live  according  to  it." 
4* 


42  DISCOURSES    ON 

Bear  in  mind,  one  other  preliminary  considera- 
tion ;  and  we  shall,  then,  be  prepared,  to  submit 
the  claims  of  that  hierarchy,  which  embosoms  the 
doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession,  to  the  decision 
of  the  word  of  God.  I  refer  to  what,  it  seems  to 
me,  no  candid  mind  can  be  unwilling  to  concede ; 
and  that  is — that  we  may  expect  to  find  every 
thing' J  essential  to  salvation,  clearly  revealed 
in  scripture.  Indifferent  things,  may  be  left  in 
comparative  darkness  ;  but,  that  God  should  have 
given  a  revelation  to  man,  in  which,  but  little  is 
said,  and  that  very  obscurely,  in  regard  to  things, 
which  lie  at  the  very  basis  of  the  hope  of  salvation, 
is  not,  for  a  moment,  to  be  believed. — Consider, 
then,  that,  according  to  the  scheme,  of  which  we 
are  now  to  speak,  an  uninterrupted  succession  of 
prelates,  is  an  essential  element  in  the  Christian 
system.  Its  advocates  say,  that  those,  who  de- 
cline or  renounce  the  authority  of  bishops,  are 
guilty  of  "renouncing  the  Church  of  Christ" — of 
''renouncing  her  ministers";  and,  through  them, 
of  renouncing  "  Christ  himself" — that  they  cannot 
therefore  "  expect  to  be  considered  as  Christians  ; 
but,  according  to  the  command  of  Christ,  as 
heathens  and  publicans" — that  they  are  "  not  in 
the  Church,  but  out  of  it" — and  are  slighting  that, 
which  is  "  the  indispensable  condition  of  salva- 
tion."    Now,  if  this  is  the  case,  we  surely  have  a 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION. 


43 


right  to  expect,  that  nothing  will  be  set  forth  in  a 
clearer  light  on  the  pages  of  inspiration,  than  the 
name,  character,  and  office  of  prelatical  bishops ; 
together  with  the  necessity  of  such  an  order  to  the 
constitution  of  the  Christian  ministry. 

On  this  point,  I  cannot  refrain,  from  introduc- 
ing to  your  notice,  a  passage  from  Dr.  Barrow, 
in  which  this  idea  is  strikingly  presented,  as  ap- 
plied to  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope.  He  says — 
"  If  God  had  designed  the  bishop  of  Rome  to  be 
for  a  perpetual  course  of  times  sovereign  monarch 
of  his  Church,  it  may  reasonably  be  supposed, 
that  he  would  expressly  have  declared  his  mind  in 
the  case  ;  it  being  a  point  of  greatest  importance 
of  all  that  concern  the  administration  of  his  king- 
dom in  the  world.  Princes  do  not  use  to  send 
their  viceroys,  unfurnished  with  patents,  clearly 
signifying  their  commission,  that  no  man,  out  of 
ignorance  or  doubts  concerning  that  point,  excusa- 
bly may  refuse  compliance ;  and,  in  all  equity, 
promulgation  is  requisite,  to  the  establishment  of 
any  law,  or  exacting  obedience.  But,  in  all  the 
pandects  of  divine  revelation,  the  bishop  of  Rome 
is  not  so  much  as  once  mentioned,  either  by  name 
or  by  character,  or  by  probable  intimation.  They 
cannot  hook  him  in,  otherwise  than  by  straining 
hard,  and  framing  a  long  chain  of  consequences, 
each  of  which  is  too  subtle  for  to  constrain  any 


44  DISCOURSES    ON 

man's  persuasion." — Expunge,  from  this  passage, 
the  bishop  of  Rome,  and  insert  prelatical  bishops  ; 
and  you  then  have  the  argument,  in  the  very  form 
in  which  I  desire  to  present  it.  If  God  has  "  de- 
signed" such  bishops  to  be  the  perpetual  mon- 
archs  of  his  Church,  so  that  the  Church  cannot  ex- 
ist without  them,  we  may  look,  with  confidence, 
for  an  express  declaration  of  "his  mind  in  the 
ease."  He  would  not  have  established  such  a 
law,  without  ''  promulgating"  it,  in  clear  and  con- 
vincing terms.  And  if,  "  in  all  the  pandects  of 
divine  revelation,"  prelatical  bishops  are  not  so 
much  as  once  mentioned  by  name,  or  by  charac- 
ter, or  by  probable  intimation — if  we  "  cannot 
hook  them  in,  otherwise  than  by  straining  hard, 
and  framing  a  long  chain  of  consequences" — we 
shall  certainly  be  entitled  to  conclude,  that  this 
peculiar  constitution  of  the  christian  ministry  has 
no  exclusive  warrant  from  the  word  of  God  ;  and, 
therefore,  that  the  doctrine  of  succession,  which 
depends  upon  it,  must  fall  to  the  ground. 

"To  the  law,"  then,  "and  to  the  testimony." 
"What  do  the  scrijitures  say,  in  regard  to  the  na- 
ture and  constitution  of  the  christian  ministry  ? 
Do  they  represent  it  as  a  hierarchy,  consisting  of 
three  orders,  the  superior  one  of  which  are  prela- 
tical bishops  ?  And  do  they  promulgate  it,  plain- 
ly, as  a  law,  to  the  operation  of  which  there  can 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  45 

be  no  exception,  that  this  order,  alone,  have  the 
power  of  perpetuating  the  sacred  office — so  that, 
neither  a  church,  nor  a  ministry,  can  exist,  except- 
ing on  the  line  of  this  particular  succession  ? 

My  first  position,  in  answer  to  this  inquiry,  is, 
that  thej'e  is  no  such  functionary,  knoivn  to  the  New 
Testament  at  all,  as  a  prelatical  bishop  :  he  is 
not  to  be  found,  there,  either  by  ''name,"  by 
''character,"  or  by  "  probable  intimation":  and, 
therefore,  there  is  no  hook,  at  the  superior  end, 
on  which  the  chain  of  this  boasted  succession  can 
bans:. 

If  there  is  such  an  officer,  in  connection  with 
the  ministry,  as  established  by  the  Saviour  and 
his  apostles,  where  are  we  to  look  for  him  ?  That 
he  cannot  be  easilf/ iound,  I  may,  surely,  be  justi- 
fied in  affirming,  since  quite  as  much  as  this  is 
confessed,  by  some  of  the  most  distinguished  ad- 
vocates of  prelacy  themselves. — The  following  is 
the  language  of  Bishop  TomHne — "  Though  I 
flatter  myself,  that  I  have  proved  episcopacy  to 
be  an  apostolical  institution,  yet  I  readily  acknowl- 
edge, that  there  is  no  precept,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  commands,  that  every  church  should 
be  governed  by  bishops." — "  As  it  has  not  pleas- 
ed our  Almighty  Father,  to  prescribe  any  partic- 
ular form  of  civil  government,  for  the  security  of 
temporal  comforts  to  his  rational  creatures,  so, 


46  DISCOURSES    ON 

neither  has  he  prescribed  any  particular  form  of 
ecclesiastical  polity,  as  absolutely  necessary  to 
the  attainment  of  eternal  happiness." — Palmer 
says,  "We  do  not  find  the  origin  of  episcopacy 
exactly  recorded." — In  Tract  No.  8  of  the  Oxford 
series,  the  author  remarks,  ''  there  is  no  part  of 
the  ecclesiastical  system,  which  is  noX  faintly  tra- 
ced in  scripture  ;  and  no  part,  which  is  much  more 
than  faintly  traced."  Again,  in  No.  85,  it  is  said, 
"  every  one  must  allow,  that  there  is  next  to  noth- 
ing, on  the  surface  of  scripture,  about  them" — re- 
ferring to  episcopacy,  succession,  the  power  of 
the  church,  &c. — ''  and  very  little,  even  under  the 
surface^  of  a  satisfactory  character." — Dr.  Ham- 
mond, in  the  preface  to  his  Avork  on  the  Power  of 
the  Keys,  thus  inquires — "  "Who  were  the  apos- 
tles' successors,  in  that  power,  which  concerned 
the  governing  the  churches,  which  they  planted"? 
And  his  answer  is,  "  that,  it  being  a  matter  of  fact, 
or  story,  later  than  the  scripture  can  universally 
reach  to,  it  cannot  be  fully  satisfied,  or  answered^ 
from  theiice  ;  but  Avill,  in  the  full  latitude,  through 
the  universal  church,  in  these  times,  be  made 
clear,  from  the  recent  evidences  that  we  have,  viz. 
from  the  consent  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers^ 
who  generally  resolve,  that  bishops  are  those  suc- 
cessors."— Dodwell,  admits  the  same  thing,  when 
he  says, — "  They  (i.  e.  the  sacred  Avriters)  720- 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  47 

tvhere  professedly  explain  the  offices,  or  ministries 
themselves,  as  to  their  nature,  or  extent,  which 
surely  they  would  have  done,  if  any  particular 
form  had  been  prescribed,  for  perpetual  dura- 
tion."*^— And,  to  these,  I  shall  only  add  the  testi- 
mony of  Bishop  Beveridge.  He  says, — ''  Noth- 
ing can  be  determined,  from  what  the  Apostles 
did,  in  their  early  proceedings,  in  preaching  the 
gospel,  as  to  the  establishment  of  any  certain 
form  of  church  government  for  perpetual  dura- 
tion."! 

Now,  in  the  review  of  such  concessions,  coming 
from  such  men,  what  shall  we  say  ?  If  they,  in 
their  zeal  for  episcopacy,  could  discover  no  dis- 
tinct and  infallible  features  of  the  system  in  scrip- 
ture, who  else  shall  be  expected  to  find  them  ? 
"  What  can  the  man  do,"  says  Solomon,  "  that 
Cometh  after  the  king"?  These  are  the  kings  and 
princes,  among  the  writers  who  have  espoused 
episcopal  claims  ;  and  any  one,  who  comes  after 
them,  and  proposes  to  find  an  explicit  warrant  for 
prelacy  in  the  word  of  God,  may  well  be  suspect- 
ed of  having  obtained  the  imaginary  sight  of  that, 
which  does  not  exist. 

But,  without  deferring  to  the  judgment  of  oth- 
ers, on  either  side  of  the  question,  let  us  examine 
the  scriptures,  briefly,  for  ourselves.     And  let  us 

*  See  Powell,  p.  26.    f  See  ibid.  p.  27. 


48  DISCOURSES    ON 

endeavor  to  approach  this  examination,  uninflu- 
enced by  any  thing,  that  we  have  ever  read,  or 
heard,  on  the  subject.  Let  us  suppose  the  New 
Testament,  especially,  to  be  placed  in  our  hands, 
for  the  first  time  ;  and  that  we  are  called  upon  to 
examine  its  statements,  for  the  single  purpose  of 
ascertaining  what  it  teaches,  in  regard  to  the  men, 
who  are  to  preach  it  to  their  fellow  men. 

Entering  upon  its  perusal,  with  this  view,  we 
find,  that,  immediately  after  the  commencement 
of  his  OAvn  ministry,  Jesus  "  ordained  twelve" 
disciples — "  whom,  also,  he  named  apostles" — 
"  that  they  should  be  with  him,  and  that  he  might 
send  them  forth  to  preach."  It  is  related,  also, 
that,  at  a  subsequent  time,  he  "  appointed  other 
seventy  also,  and  sent  them  before  his  face,  into 
every  city,  and  place,  whither  he  himself  should 
come."  And,  finally,  it  is  recorded,  concerning 
''  the  eleven,"  who  remained,  of  the  first  class,  af- 
ter the  death  of  Judas,  that,  before  his  ascension, 
he  spake  unto  them,  saying — "  All  power  is  given 
unto  me,  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye,  there- 
fore, and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things, 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you ;  and  lo,  I 
am  with  you,  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world.      Amen."-— These  passages,  brief  as  they 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  49 

are,  contain  the  sum  of  our  Saviour's  teaching, 
on  the  subject  of  the  ministry,  as  appointed  and 
organized  by  himself.  And,  having  recited  them, 
we  stop,  at  once,  to  inquire — In  what  part  of  this 
account  are  we  to  find  the  office,  and  features,  of 
a  prelatical  bishop  ?  What  evidence,  does  it  fur- 
nish, of  a  superior  order  in  the  ministry,  exercising 
authority  over  two  others,  and  by  the  imposition 
of  whose  hands,  alone,  a  true  ministry  can  be  con- 
tinued ?  Does  it  trace  the  lines  of  such  an  order, 
even  •'  faintly"?  And,  is  it  credible,  that  the  no- 
tion of  such  a  hierarchy,  as  that  to  which  this  or- 
der belongs,  could  ever  have  entered  the  human 
mind,  through  the  medium  of  such  statements 
alone  ?  They  speak  of  ''twelve,"  and,  afterwards 
of  ''  seventy,"  who  were  called  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel of  the  kingdom ;  but  they  say,  not  a  word, 
about  either  of  these,  as  possessing  the  sole  power 
of  ordination,  and  government.  And,  if  an  up- 
per grade,  among  his  ministering  servants,  hold- 
ing this  power  exclusively,  was  to  be  essential  to 
the  being  of  a  church,  who  can  believe,  that  the 
Great  Teacher  would  have  left  the  world,  without 
announcing  the  doctrine  in  explicit  terms ;  and, 
thereby,  affording  such  evidence  of  its  truth  as 
none  could  overlook,  or  evade  ? 

The  answer  to  this,  on  the  part  of  those  who 
contend  for  episcopacy,  as  of  divine  right,  is, — 
5 


50  DISCOURSES    ON 

that,  although  the  doctrine  was  not  taught  by  the 
Saviour,  expressly^  the  elements  of  the  system 
ivere  in  force,  under  his  own  administration.  And 
this  is  made  out,  by  assigning  the^r^^  order,  in 
the  ministry,  to  himself — the  second,  to  the  twelve 
apostles — and  the  third,  to  the  seventy  disciples. 
To  say  nothing  of  the  fact,  that  this  distribution  is 
unsanctioned  by  Christ  himself,  there  are  many 
and  cogent  reasons,  Avhy  no  unprejudiced  mind 
can  embrace  it,  as  justified  by  the  circumstances 
of  the  case. — In  the  first  place,  that  must  be  a 
weak  cause,  which  cannot  be  supported,  without 
bringing  down  the  Head  of  the  church,  from  his 
high  and  exclusive  position,  so  as  to  make  him 
aji  order,  among  his  own  servants  I  And,  even 
if  this  could  be  done,  without  absurdity,  of  what 
advantage  would  it  be  ?  How  could  one  infalli- 
ble, universal  Bishop,  who  could  have  no  equals, 
represent  an  order,  Avhich  may  be  extended  in- 
definitely ?  This  might  answer  to  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Papal  hierarchy,  but  not  to  that,  of 
which  we  are  now  speaking. — In  the  second  place, 
if  the  twelve  apostles  belonged  to  the  second  or- 
der in  the  ministry,  the  system  of  prelacy  contra- 
dicts itself.  Its  fundamental  position  is,  that  the 
apostles  were  of  the  first  order,  and  that  prelati- 
cal  bishops  are  their  successors.  To  be  consist- 
ent, in  the  argument  now  under  consideration, 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  51 

they  must  regard  themselves  as  the  successors  of 
Christy  and  not  of  the  apostles. — And,  in  the  third 
place,  there  is  no  authority  whatever  for  saying, 
that  the  twelve  apostles  and  the  seventy,  sustained 
towards  each  other,  the  relation  of  a  higher,  and 
a  lower  order  in  the  ministry.  They  were  call- 
ed, to  the  same  work — they  were  sent  out,  in  the 
same  way,  "  two  and  two" — and  their  commis- 
sions were  the  same,  both  in  form  and  substance, 
and,  to  a  great  extent,  in  the  very  language  em- 
ployed. They  were  both  reminded,  that  the 
''  harvest"  was  ''  great,"  and  the  ''  laborers" 
"  few";  and  were  commanded,  while  going  forth 
themselves,  to  "  pray  the  Lord  of  the  harvest,  that 
he  would  send  forth  more  laborers  into  his  har- 
vest"— they  were  both  forbidden,  to  provide  any 
means  of  support  for  themselves,  remembering 
that  "  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire" — they 
were  both  commanded  to  proclaim  the  nearness 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  to  shake  off  the  dust 
of  their  feet,  against  those,  who  would  not  receive 
their  message — and  they  were  both  addressed,  in 
the  encouraging  language,  ''  he  that  receiveth 
you,  receiveth  me,  and  he  that  receiveth  me,  re- 
ceiveth him  that  sent  me." — That  there  was  a  dif- 
ference between  them,  in  the  purpose  of  their  call- 
ing, in  some  respects^  we  do  not,  indeed,  deny. 
Christ  chose   the  twelve  apostles,   to  be  "  with 


52  DISCOURSES    ON 

him" — to  be  the  members  of  his  family — to  live 
near  to  his  person — to  receive  instruction,  from 
his  own  lips — and,  in  various  things,  of  which  we 
shall  speak  hereafter,  to  do  an  extraordinary  work, 
in  establishing  the  church,  and  completing  the 
volume  of  divine  revelation.  But,  that  they  dif- 
fered from,  and  were  superior  to,  the  seventy,  in 
such  a  sense  as  to  form  a  distinct  and  higher 
grade,  in  the  ordinary  and  permanent  ministry  of 
the  gospel,  is  a  position,  unsupported  by  any  one 
declaration,  or  fact,  which  the  history  of  our  Sav- 
iour's life  and  teaching  contains. 

From  the  commencement  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment history,  then,  till  the  ascension  of  Christ, 
we  may  confidently  say,  there  is  not  the  shadow 
of  a  prelate  to  be  seen,  even  in  the  remotest  dis- 
tance :  he  is  not  known,  to  the  evangelical  record, 
either  by  name,  or  by  the  office,  which  he  is  sup- 
posed to  fill. 

Pursuing  our  way,  we  now  inquire,  whether 
any  traces  of  the  prelatical  character  and  office 
are  to  be  found,  among  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, or,  in  any  of  the  Epistles,  written  by  them 
for  the  instruction  of  the  churches  ?  If  there  is  a 
single  passage,  in  either  of  these  departments, 
which  represents  the  christian  ministry  as  consist- 
ing essentially  of  three  grades,  and  which  attaches 
the  powers  of  ordination,  and  government,  exclu- 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSIOxV.  53 

sively  to  the  superior  one,  let  the  advocates  of 
this  system  produce  it.     That  any  thing  can  be 
found,  in  the  way  of  direct  teaching,  to  this  effect, 
no  one  pretends.     There  is  no  passage  in  which, 
three  orders  of  ministers  are  mentioned,  together 
— there  is  no  passage,  which  speaks  of  any  one 
order,  as  being  superior  to  any  other  order — there 
is  no  passage,  which  teaches  that  there  are  orders 
in  the  ministry,  at  all.     All  the  proof,  bearing  up- 
on these  points,   which  the  friends  of  prelacy  at- 
tempt to  produce,  is  indirect;  and  consists  of  in- 
ferences drawn  from  historical  facts.     Though  the 
matter  to  be  proved  is  fundamental,  it  is  granted, 
on  all  hands,  that,  if  established,  it  must  rest,  not 
upon  the  positive  instructions  or  commands  of  the 
apostles ;  but,  only,  upon  things  Avhich  occurred, 
incidentally,    in  the   establishment  and    govern- 
ment of  the  primitive    churches.      And  to  what 
does    the    evidence,    arising    from    this    source, 
amount  ?     We  take  the  position,  in   ansAver    to 
this  inquiry,  in  the  first  place,   that,  in  all  the  no- 
tices of  ecclesiastical  rulers,  which  are  to  be  found 
in  the  Acts,  and  Epistles,  there  is  not  so  much, 
as  an   appropriate  name,  for  a  prelatical  bishop  ! 
Be  not  startled,  at  the  apparent  boldness,  and  te- 
merity, of  this  proposition ;  for  the  fact,  as  we 
shall  endeavor  to  show  you,  is  precisely  so.     And 
we  ask  your  candid  attention  to  it,  as  going,  in 
5* 


54  DISCOURSES    ON 

our  view,  to  the  foundations  of  the  whole  subject ; 
and,  as  deciding  the  question,  to  every  consider- 
ate and  unprejudiced  mind.  If  there  is  such  an 
officer,  in  the  church  of  Christ,  as  a  prelatical 
bishop,  he  is  ivithout  a  name,  in  the  scriptural 
vocabulary.  According  to  the  pretensions  of  the 
system,  we  are  examining,  he  constitutes  the  chief 
order  in  the  ministry — he,  alone,  possesses  the 
power  of  ordaining  other  men  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel— and,  without  him,  a  church  cannot  exist. 
And  yet,  no  appellation  was  assigned  to  him,  by 
the  sacred  writers,  by  which  he  was  distinguished, 
in  their  day ;  or,  by  which  he  might  be  known, 
in  subsequent  times. — If  there  is  a  scriptural  name 
for  him,  what  is  it,  and  where  are  we  to  find  it  ? 
The  proof  rests  with  those,  who  say  that  it  exists, 
and  not  with  us.  Were  I  acquainted  with  it,  I 
should  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  it :  but,  having 
never  met  with  it,  in  my  own  reading  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  knowing  nothing  of  its  discovery, 
by  others,  I  may  be  justified  in  saying,  that  it  is 
not  to  be  found,  and  therefore  cannot  be  produced. 
But,  though  the  burden  of  proof,  here,  does  not 
rest  with  us,  allow  me  to  occupy  your  attention, 
for  a  few  moments,  in  showing,  how  the  case,  in 
reference  to  this  particular,  stands.  And,  for  the 
purpose  of  placing  the  truth,  in  regard  to  it,  be- 
fore you,  I  renew  the  inquiry, — If  there  is  a  name, 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  55 

in  the  New  Testament,  for  a  prelatical  bishop, 
what  is  it  ?  Is  it  to  be  found,  in  the  ivord  bishop, 
as  this  word  is  used,  in  either  of  the  connections 
in  which  it  occurs  ?  The  cases,  in  which  this 
name  is  applied,  are  only  five  in  number.  And, 
having  examined  them,  briefly,  in  their  order,  I 
shall  leave  it  with  you,  to  judge,  whether,  in  ei- 
ther, it  can  signify  what  is  claimed  for  the  office 
of  bishop,  in  the  scheme  now  under  consideration. 
We  meet  with  it,  fi?'st,  in  Acts  xx.  28.  "  Take 
heed  therefore  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the 
flock,  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
over  seer  s^^  (bishops.)  The  question  to  be  deter- 
mined, here,  is,  who  are  the  persons,  to  Avhom 
the  name  overseer,  or  bishop,  is  here  applied. 
By  going  back  to  verse  17,  we  ascertain  that  they 
were  "  elders,"  or  presbyters. — "From  Miletus, 
he  sent  to  Ephesus  and  called  the  elders  of  the 
church.  And,  when  they  were  come,  he  said  un- 
to them,"  &c.  The  same  persons,  therefore, 
who  are  called  "  elders,"  in  the  language  of  the 
historian,  were  addressed  by  Paul,  as  bishops — 
proving,  incontestably,  that,  in  the  judgment  of 
scripture,  the  words  bishop  and  bresbyter,  instead 
of  pointing  to  different  orders  in  the  ministry,  are 
names  for  one  and  the  same  order  ;  and  showing, 
at  the  same  time,  that  a  bishop,  in  the  true  sense, 
is  not  the  ruler  of  ministers  and  churches,  but  the 


56  DISCOURSES    ON 

immediate  pastor  of  the  flock  of  God,  whose  busi- 
ness it  is,  to  feed  them  with  the  spiritual  food, 
imparted  in  the  direct  and  ordinary  ministrations 
of  the  word. 

The  second  mst^Liice,  in  which  the  name  occurs, 
is  in  Phillippians  i.  1, — where  the  Apostle,  in  his 
salutation  to  the  church  at  Phillippi,  addresses 
them  as  "  the  saints,"  "  with  the  bishops  and  dea- 
cons.*'— It  is  not  credible,  neither  is  it  supposed 
by  any,  that  there  could  have  been,  at  this  early 
period,  a  plurality  of  prelates  in  Phillippi,  each 
one  exercising  the  authority  which  is  claimed  for 
this  office.  And,  if  not,  the  conclusion  is  una- 
voidable, that  here,  as  in  the  former  case,  the 
name  is  applied  to  the  ordinary  pastors,  in  the 
character  of  overseers  of  the  flock. 

The  tJiird  and  fourth  cases,  in  which  the  name 
occurs,  are  in  parallel  passages,  and  may  be  taken 
together — one  in  I.  Tim.  iii.  2.  "  A  bishop 
then  must  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife," 
&c. ;  and  the  other  in  Titus  i.  7.  "  For  a  bishop 
must  be  blameless,  as  the  steward  of  God,"  &c. 
The  object  here  is  to  exhibit,  in  detail,  the  need- 
ful traits  of  the  ministerial  character.  And  who 
the  ministers  referred  to  are,  the  context  clearly 
shows.  The  apostle  is  giving  directions  in  re- 
spect to  the  ordination  of  ''  elders." — "  For  this 
cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  57 

in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain 
elders  in  every  city,"  &c.,  verse  5.  These  elders, 
he  insists,  shall  possess  certain  moral  qualifica- 
tions; and  the  reason  assigned  is,  that  a  bishop 
must  be  "  blameless,"  &c. — which  brings  us  back 
to  the  position,  that  a  bishop  and  an  elder,  in  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament,  are  identical. 
They  are  one  in  office  ;  and  the  different  names 
are  taken,  from  the  different  aspects  in  which  that 
office  may  be  contemplated. 

The  fifth  J  and  only  remaining  passage,  in  which 
the  word  bishop  is  found,  is  I.  Peter  ii.  25. 
"  For  ye  were  as  sheep  going  astray  ;  but  are 
now  returned  to  the  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  your 
souls."  But,  as  the  name  is  applied,  in  this  in- 
stance, to  Christ,  and  not  to  the  incumbent  of  any 
office  among  men,  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  hav- 
ing any  bearing  upon  the  results  of  the  present  in- 
quiry. 

It  is  plain,  then,  from  this  reference  to  the 
scriptural  applications  of  the  name,  that  the  bishop 
of  New  Testament  times  was  not  a  bishop,  in  the 
prelatical  sense.  He  occupied  no  superior  place, 
as  compared  Avith  other  ministers,  in  the  exercise 
of  government  and  discipline,  but  was  himself  a 
presbyter,  brought  into  immediate  connection 
with  an  individual  church,  as  its  spiritual  instruc- 
tor and  guide.     On  this  point,  however,  we  do 


58  DISCOURSES    ON 

not  dwell,  because  the  position  we  have  taken  in 
relation  to  it  is  not,  now,  denied.  There  have 
been  writers  on  episcopacy  who  have  denied  it ; 
but  their  day  is  past.  The  truth  has  finally  pre- 
vailed, and  it  stands  confessed,  that,  according  to 
scriptural  usage,  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter  are  the 
same.  Dr.  Bowden  says,  in  reference  to  this 
usage,  ''  that  presbyters  were  called  bishops,  I 
readily  grant."  And  Bishop  Onderdonk,  in  his 
Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture,  has  the  following 
language — "  The  name  '  bishop,'  which  now  de- 
signates the  highest  grade  of  the  ministry,  is  not 
appropriated  to  that  office  in  scripture.  That 
name  is  there  given  to  the  middle  order,  or  pres- 
byters ;  and  all  that  we  read  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment concerning  'bishops' — including,  of  course 
the  words,  overseers,  and  oversight,  which  have 
the  same  derivation — is  to  be  regarded  as  pertain- 
ing to  that  middle  grade." 

Having  reached  this  conclusion,  we  advance  a 
step,  and  press  the  inquiry — If  there  is  no  prelati- 
cal  bishop  to  be  found  in  the  name  "  bishop,"  as 
used  in  scripture,  under  what  other  name  shall  we 
find  him?  Shall  we  say,  that  his  character  and 
office  are  designated  by  the  word  apostle  ?  His 
claims  to  a  share  in  the  apostolical  office^  will  be 
considered  hereafter.  At  present,  we  are  con- 
cerned with  the  name,  only.     And  w^e  challenge 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  59 

the  advocates  of  the  system  we  are  opposing,  to 
produce  any  one  respect  in  which  the  name,  in 
this  application  of  it,  would  be  appropriate.  Is 
there  a  bishop  of  any  diocese,  in  this  or  any  other 
country,  who  would  be  willing  to  assume  it  ? 
And,  if  he  were  to  assume  it,  would  any  thing 
more  be  wanting  to  expose  him  to  a  degree  of  ridi- 
cule from  which  he  could  never  recover  ?  The 
Apostle  of  New- York  !  The  Apostle  of  New- 
Jersey  !  Would  not  the  bare  announcement  of 
the  title  carry  with  it,  to  the  public  ear,  a  sufficient 
exposure  of  its  arrogance  and  absurdity  ? 

Remember,  moreover,  that  prelatists  them- 
selves being  judges,  the  name  "  apostle"  Avas  giv- 
en by  Him  who  conferred  it,  not  to  the  fii'st  order 
in  the  ministry,  but  to  the  second.  We  have  al- 
ready seen,  that  according  to  their  views  of  the 
hierarchy,  as  existing  in  the  time  of  Christ,  the 
superior  office  was  filled  by  Christ  himself,  while 
the  apostles  belonged  to  the  next  inferior.  It 
was  while  they  occupied  this  inferior  position  that 
they  were  called  "  apostles" — ''  the  twelve  whom 
he  named  apostles."  This  Avas  the  appellation 
assigned  to  them  by  their  Bishop,  who  was  above 
them  in  rank  and  station.  He  belonged  to  the 
upper,  and  they  to  the  middle  grade.  And  from 
this,  it  follows,  that  prelates  have  no  more  right 
to  the  name  ^'apostle,"  than  to  the  name  ''bishop." 


60  DISCOURSES    ON 

On  their  own  principles,  it  was  given  in  scripture 
to  an  order  below  that  to  which  they  belong;  or, 
in  other  words,  if  the  name  "  apostle,"  as  origin- 
ally given  and  used  in  scripture,  is  the  appropri- 
ate name  of  an  order  in  the  ministry,  it  must,  ac- 
cording to  this  system,  be  the  order  of  priests^ 
and  not  the  order  of  bishops. 

Failing,  then,  to  find  a  name  for  a  prelatical 
bishop,  either  in  the  word  ''  bishop,"  or  the  word 
"  apostle,"  the  question  returns — What  shall  we 
call  him  ?  If  there  is  a  name  for  him  in  the  Bi- 
ble, what  is  it  ?  Shall  we  call  him  a  "  prophet"? 
or  shall  we  style  him  an  "evangelist"?  or  shall 
we  give  him  the  appellation  of  a  ''  pastor"  or 
"teacher"?  or  shall  we  look  for  him  in  any  of 
the  "  helps"  or  "governments,"  which  are  refer- 
red to  as  connected  with  the  primitive  church  ? 
None  of  these  names  would  be  appropriate — there 
is  not  one  in  the  entire  list  which  would  answer. 
And  so  strongly  does  this  circumstance  press  upon 
the  minds  of  candid  prelatical  writers,  that  we 
begin  to  hear  it  confessed,  in  high  places,  that  the 
fact  is  as  we  have  stated  it — that  there  is  no  7iame, 
in  scripture,  for  a  minister  of  the  superior  grade 
in  the  episcopal  scheme.  Hear  Bishop  Onder- 
donk  on  this  point ;  and  then  say,  whether  I  do 
not  tell  you  the  truth.  He  says, — "when  we 
find  in  the  New  Testament  the  name  "  bishop,'' 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  61 

we  must  regard  it  as  meaning  the  bishop  of  a  pa- 
rish, or  a  presbyter  ;  but  the  bishop  of  a  diocese, 
or  the  highest  grade  of  the  ministry,  we  must  there 
seek,  not  under  that  name,  and  INDEPEND- 
ENTLY OF  ANY  NAME  AT  ALL."* 

Here,  then,  we  arrive  at  an  important  point — 
let  us  look  around,  for  a  moment,  and  see  how 
the  case  now  stands.  If  prelacy  is  taught  in  scrip- 
ture, we  have  come  to  a  most  remarkable  phe- 
nomenon !  The  church  of  Christ — the  most  im- 
portant society  on  earth — is  established  in  con- 
nection with  proper  officers,  and  with  proper 
rules  for  its  government.  The  officers  named, 
are  "bishops,"  or  ''presbyters,"  and  "deacons." 
These  names  occur  frequently,  and  we  read  of 
no  others.  And  yet  we  are  soberly  called  upon, 
and  expected  to  believe,  that  there  is  another  offi- 
cer, who  is  NAMELESS, — morc  important  than  either 
— essential  to  the  being  of  a  church — "  not  mere- 
ly an  order  in  her  organization,  but  the  principle 
of  her  continuance'^ — whose  authority  none  can 
decline,  Avithout  being  guilty  of  rebeUion  and 
schism — who  alone  "  can  unite  us  to  the  Father, 
in  the  way  of  Christ's  appointment" — and  whose 
administration  we  cannot  renounce,  "  excepting 
at  the  peril  of  our  salvation^^!  !  !  Is  this  credi- 
ble ?     Has  any  thing  like  it  ever  occurred  in  the 

*  Episcopacy  Examinedj  p.  13. 
6 


62  DISCOURSES    ON 

organization  of  any  associated  body  of  men  ?  Is 
it  consistent  with  what  is  most  obviously  demand- 
ed, by  the  nature  and  circumstances  of  the  case  ? 
''  That  official  titles,"  says  Dr.  Mason,  ''  should 
be  conferred  upon  every  grade  of  officers  in  the 
church  except  the  highest ;  that  this  officer  should 
have  no  place  in  the  official  catalogue ;  that  he 
should  wander  up  and  down  among  the  churches 
without  so  much  as  a  name" — "so  far  surpasses 
all  the  powers  of  belief,  that  the  proof  of  his  ex- 
istence is  almost,  if  not  altogether,  impossible." 

The  conclusion,  then,  to  which  Ave  are  urged 
by  this  reasoning,  is,  that  no  such  person  as  a  pre- 
latical  bishop  was  known  to  the  minds  of  inspired 
men,  when  the  New  Testament  was  written.  If 
he  had  occupied  as  Avide  a  place  in  the  field  of 
their  mental  vision,  as  he  does  in  that  of  the  ad- 
vocates of  prelacy  now,  beyond  a  doubt  they 
would  have  said  something  concerning  him — they 
Avould  at  least  have  given  him  a  name.  But  the 
truth  is,  that  they  knew  nothing  of  him,  or  his 
office,  as  existing  by  divine  authority,  and  there- 
fore they  have  left  him  loithout  a  name.  This 
omission,  ^^?^inspired  men  have  undertaken  to  sup- 
ply— they  have  found  a  name  for  the  upper  grade 
of  the  hierarchy  Avhich  has  come  into  existence 
since — and  they  have  done  it,  no  otherwise,  than 
by  an  act  of  usurpation.     They  have  seized  up- 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  63 

on  one  of  the  names  of  the  scriptural  presbyter — 
robbed  it  of  its  original  meaning — and  made  it 
signify  something,  which,  by  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  it  was  never  intended  to  express. 
A  BISHOP,  by  human  authority,  is  a  prelate — 
A  BISHOP,  by  divine  authority,  is  a  parochial  pastor. 
At  this  point,  I  propose  to  relieve  your  atten- 
tion, for  the  present.  But,  before  closing,  allow 
me  to  remind  you,  in  this  as  the  proper  place — 
that,  lohen  non-episcopal  denominations  call  their 
jjarochial  ministers  bishops,  they  are  guilty  of  710 
perversion,  or  misapplication,  of  the  name.  On 
the  other  hand,  they  are  using  it  in  its  original  and 
authorized  sense.  It  means,  in  scripture,  the 
overseer  of  a  particular  flock ;  and  it  never  means 
any  thing  else,  excepting  m  the  one  case  in  which 
it  is  applied  to  Christ.  This  is  granted,  by  the 
advocates,  as  well  as  by  the  opponents,  of  episco- 
pacy. They  all  acknowledge,  that  the  applica- 
tion of  the  name  to  a  higher  order  than  that 
of  presbyters,  was  begun  after  the  inspired  wri- 
ters had  finished  their  work.  "  It  was  after  the 
apostolic  age,''^  says  Bishop  Onderdonk,  "that 
the  name  '  bishop'  was  taken  from  the  second  or- 
der and  appropriated  to  the  first."  The  usurpers 
in  this  case,  therefore,  are  not  those  who  call 
themselves  bishops,  according  to  the  system  of 
presbyterian  parity,  but  they  are  the  prelatical  or 


64  DISCOURSES    ON 

diocesan  bishops,  who  claim  for  themselves  what 
the  sacred  writers  never  intended  that  this  name 
should  import.  Yet  the  title  is  borne  by  the  lat- 
ter, with  the  most  undisturbed  and  serene  self- 
complacency, — as  if  there  could  be  no  doubt  in 
regard  to  its  authority  and  fitness — while  its  as- 
sumption by  the  former  provokes,  upon  the  coun- 
tenances of  many,  a  smile  of  incredulity  border- 
ing on  derision. 

So  much  for  the  influence  of  usages,  which  are 
contrary  to  scripture,  even  upon  the  minds  of 
those  who  have  the  scriptures  in  their  possession. 
No  man  ever  read  the  word  "bishop,"  on  the 
pages  of  the  Bible,  as  signifying  any  thing  higher 
than  a  presbyter.  And  yet  the  sound  of  its  appli- 
cation to  such  an  individual  now,  falls  upon  the 
public  ear  as  something  which  is  strange,  unau- 
thorized, and  even  presumptuous.  For  names, 
in  themselves  considered,  it  is  not  worth  while  to 
contend ;  but  it  often  happens,  in  the  progress  of 
human  affairs,  that  names  become  things.  And, 
therefore,  it  is  of  some  importance  to  adhere  to 
the  phraseology  of  the  scriptures,  as  a  means  of 
preserving  unimpaired  the  system  of  faith  and  du- 
ty which  they  were  intended  to  reveal. 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  65 


DISCOURSE  III. 


THE  SAME  SUBJECT  CONTINUED— PRELATICAL  BISHOPS 
NOT  KNOWN  IN  SCRIPTURE,  BY  CHARACTER,  AND  OF- 
FICE—ARE NOT  SUCCESSORS  TO  THE   APOSTLES. 


Acts  xvii.  11.  These  were  more  noble  than  those  in  Thessalonica, 
in  that  they  received  the  word  with  all  readiness  of  mind,  and  search- 
ed the  scriptures  daily,  whether  these  things  were  so. 

The  value  of  this  passage  to  us,  in  our  present 
position,  consists  in  this — that,  by  divine  authori- 
ty, it  pronounces  a  commendation  upon  those, 
who  adhere  exchisively  to  the  scriptures  as  the 
rule  of  their  faith.  The  persons  to  whom  it  refers, 
were  attending  upon  the  instructions  of  no  less 
an  individual  than  the  apostle  Paul.  He  had 
come  to  Berea,  in  the  prosecution  of  a  missionary 
journey,  in  company  with  Silas ;  and,  entering 
into  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews,  according  to  his 
custom,  he  preached  the  messiahship  and  mission 
of  Jesus  to  the  children  of  Abraham.  Contrary 
to  his  experience,  in  most  other  places,  he  was 
6* 


66  DISCOURSES    ON 

heard,  not  only  with  respectful  attention,  but  with 
deep  interest.  The  views  of  truth  which  he  pre- 
sented, struck  the  minds  of  the  Jews  as  plausible 
in  a  high  degree  ;  and  how  these  views  were  fi- 
nally disposed  of,  it  is  the  object  of  the  text  to  in- 
form us.  They  did  not  receive  his  teaching, 
merely  because  it  was  plausible  in  itself,  or  on 
account  of  the  channel  through  which  it  was  con- 
veyed ;  but  they  brought  it  to  the  test  of  their  in- 
spired writings.  They  ''  searched  the  scriptures, 
daily,"  with  a  view  of  ascertaining  how  far  the 
preaching  of  the  Apostle  coincided  with  the  in- 
structions of  Moses  and  the  Prophets — determin- 
ed to  receive  so  much  of  his  teaching,  as  would 
stand  the  test  of  this  rule  of  faith,  and  no  more. 
And,  in  view  of  their  course  in  this  respect,  they 
have  been  set  up  on  the  page  of  sacred  history,  as 
"a  lamp"  to  the  "feet"  and  "a  light"  to  the 
'•  path"  of  all  the  succeeding  generations  of  men. 
It  is  on  the  platform  of  this  example,  that  we 
take  our  stand  in  the  present  discussion.  We  are 
willing  to  be  tried  by  the  word  of  God,  and  to 
stand,  or  fall,  according  to  the  verdict  which  it 
renders.  Point  us  to  any  place  in  the  scriptures, 
where  prelacy  is  represented  as  an  essential  ele- 
ment in  the  constitution  of  the  christian  church, 
and  we  yield  at  once.  But  tell  us  not  of  fathers 
and  councils,  of  tradition  and  of  church  authority, 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  67 

of  apostolical  bishops  and  lines  of  succession, 
until  we  have  found  something,  in  this  one 
and  only  rule  of  our  faith^  which  will  serve  as  a 
basis  on  which  the  system  may  rest.  ''  To  the 
law  and  to  the  testimony,"  w^e  again  say  ;  "  if 
they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  be- 
cause there  is  no  light  in  them." 

Adhering  to  this  principle,  we  proceed  in  our 
endeavor  to  show,  that  "  there  is  no  such  function' 
ary,  knoiun  to  the  Neiv  Testament  at  all,  as  a  pre- 
LATiCAL  BISHOP."  Wc  liave  seen,  that  no  traces 
of  his  character  and  office  are  to  be  discovered 
in  the  evangelical  history  ;  and  that  no  name  for 
him  is  to  be  found,  in  the  lists  of  official  titles 
which  occur,  either  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  or 
in  any  of  the  Epistles.  The  incidents  recorded 
in  these  subsequent  parts  of  the  New  Testament, 
occurred  while  the  primitive  churches  were  in 
their  forming  state  ;  and  frequent  reference  is  had, 
not  only  to  "  the  saints"  in  their  associated  state, 
but  also  to  their  spiritual  helps  and  rulers.  We 
read  of  "  pastors,"  ''teachers,"  "elders,"  ''bish- 
ops," "  deacons,"  &c. — but,  among  them  all, 
there  is  no  name  for  a  prelate.  So  that  we  must 
seek  him  there,  as  one  of  his  staunchest  advocates 
has  said,  "independently  of  any  name  at  all." 

This,  to  our  minds,  is  perfectly  conclusive  as 
to  the  fact,  that  no  such  superior  officer  exists  in 


68  DISCOURSES    ON 

connection  with  the  church,  by  divine  authority. 
For  who,  that  has  not  a  favorite  system  to  sup- 
port by  such  an  assumption,  can  believe,  that  the 
Great  Head  of  the  church  would  have  left  the 
most  important  official  character  in  all  his  house- 
hold without  an  appropriate  appellation,  by  which 
he  might  be  known  distinctly,  and  unchangeably, 
till  the  end  of  time  ?  "Who  ever  heard  of  a  gov- 
ernment, either  great  or  small,  established,  with 
such  an  omission  as  this  ?  A  greater  omission,  it 
would  not  have  been,  if  the  framers  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  had  finished  their 
work,  without  giving  a  name  to  the  Chief  Magis- 
trate of  the  Union  !  They  might  have  given  ti- 
tles to  all  the  inferior  officers,  and  heads  of  de- 
partment— assigning  to  each  his  appropriate 
sphere,  and  specifying  his  particular  duties — and 
then  have  separated,  without  fixing  upon  any  title 
for  Mwi,  who  was  to  exercise  a  controling  influ- 
ence over  them  all ;  and  not  have  committed  a 
greater  absurdity  than  the  sacred  writers  have 
committed,  if  a  prelate  is  to  be  sought  for  in  their 
acts  and  instructions  independently  of  a  name. 

But  we  are  here  met  by  the  plea,  on  the  part 
of  the  advocates  of  prelacy,  that  iicmies  are  noth- 
ing— "  we  are  inquiring  for  the  thing — the  name 
is  not  worth  a  line  of  controversy."  We  beg 
leave,   however,  to  remind  those  who  urge  this 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


69 


plea,  that  things  so  important  as  a  prelatical  Bish- 
op is  supposed  to  be,  are  not  generally  to  be 
found  without  names.  In  our  world,  there  are 
names  for  all  things  that  have  a  real  existence,  so 
far  as  they  come  within  the  sphere  of  our  know- 
ledge. We  have  an  appellation  at  hand  for  eve- 
ry object  and  being,  both  in  the  natural  and  moral 
world,  to  which  we  sustain  any  relation.  And, 
for  this  reason,  where  there  are  no  names.,  either 
good,  bad,  or  indifferent,  Ave  generally  conclude 
there  are  no  things. 

Dismissing  the  matter  of  the  name,  however, 
we  now  inquire,  whether  '•  the  thing"  is  to  be 
found  in  scripture,  luithout  a  name  ?  And,  on 
this  part  of  the  subject,  the  ground  which  we 
must  occupy,  is  marked  out  for  us — we  must  go 
where  the  friends  of  prelacy  lead  us — we  must  ac- 
company them  to  those  parts  of  scripture,  which 
they  regard  as  forming  the  strong  holds  of  their 
own  system — and  see  whether  the  bishop  of  their 
superior  order  is  really  to  be  found,  in  those 
places  in  which  they  profess  to  discover  the  traces 
of  his  character  and  office. 

Their  first  position,  is,  that  the  rank  and  office 
of  their  prelates  is  to  be  found  in  the  rank  and 
office  of  THE  Apostles.  And,  as  this  is  a  main 
point,  in  its  relations  to  the  whole  discussion,  we 
solicit  your  patient  attention,  while  we  examine  it 
somewhat  in  detail. 


70  DISCOURSES    ON 

The  first  thing  to  be  observed  in  regard  to  it, 
is,  that  it  furnishes  a  striking  specimen  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  prelacy  shifts  its  ground,  and  even 
contradicts  itself,  as  new  emergencies  and  difficul- 
ties arise.  We  have  already  seen,  that  the  advo- 
cates of  this  system,  in  order  to  make  out  a  triple 
order  iw  the  ministry  from  the  beginning,  find  it 
necessary  to  place  the  apostles  in  the  second  or- 
der, assigning  the^r^^  order  to  the  Saviour  him- 
self. This,  according  to  their  views,  Avas  the 
state  of  things,  when  the  apostolic  office  was  crea- 
ted, and  characterized  by  its  appropriate  name. 
But  noAv,  Avhen  the  object  is  to  find  the  character 
and  office  of  a  prelatical  bishop  in  particular,  the 
apostles  are  brought  before  us,  with  their  rank 
and  character  entirely  ahered — they  are  no  longer 
in  the  second  order  of  the  ministry,  but  belong  to 
the  first!  This  unceremonious  change  in  their 
position  is,  no  doubt,  very  convenient.  But  the 
candid  inquirer  after  truth,  will  be  Hkely  to  ask 
for  the  authority  on  which  it  is  made.  If  an  apos- 
tle, by  the  call  and  appointment  of  Christ,  was 
one  who  belonged  to  the  middle  grade  in  the  min- 
istry, then  it  is  impossible  that,  by  the  same  au- 
thority, and  without  any  transmutation  either  of 
name,  or  of  office,  he  can  belong  to  the  superior 
grade.  And  if,  to  cover  the  ground  of  this  ab- 
surdity, it  should  be  said,  that  the  apostles  were 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  71 

transferred,  after  their  first  vocation,  from  the 
second  grade  to  the  first,  we  mquire — u'hen  were 
they  transferred  ?  Wlw  transferred  them  ?  And 
in  what  manner  was  the  transfer  made  ?  If  these 
questions  can  be  answered,  by  pointing  iis  to  any 
record  or  notice  of  the  change,  we  shall  be  satis- 
fied. But  this  has  not  been  done,  and  it  never 
can  be.  It  is  easy  to  say,  that,  before  the  ascen- 
sion of  Christ,  they  received  a  new  commission — 
conferring  upon  them  new  power,  and  elevat- 
ing them  to  a  higher  office — but  we  want  the 
proof,  and  not  the  naked  assertion.  There  is  no 
record,  either  of  the  fact  itself,  or  of  any  thing, 
from  which  it  can  be  fairly  inferred. 

Besides,  if  the  apostles  ever  were  transferred 
or  ordained  from  a  second,  order  in  the  ministry  to 
a  superior  one,  where  Avould  be  the  propriety  of 
still  calling  them  by  the  same  name  ?  Does  not 
a  change  of  name  follow  a  change  of  rank,  and 
office,  by  a  necessary  consequence  ?  In  the  pre- 
latical  system,  is  a  deacon  still  called  a  deacon, 
after  he  becomes  a  priest ;  and  a  priest  still  call- 
ed a  priest,  after  he  becomes  a  bishop  ?  And  if 
not,  why  should  an  apostle — if  this  was  his  proper 
title,  when  he  belonged  to  the  second  order — be 
still  called  an  apostle,  after  he  has  entered  upon 
the  first  order  ?      Such  are  the  strange  incon- 


72  DISCOURSES    ON 

sistencies,  to  which  it  is  necessary  to  resort,  in 
supporting  this  unscriptural  and  proofless  scheme. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  still  asserted  and  attempted 
to  be  proved,  that  the  apostles  luere  the  highest 
of  three  grades  in  the  ministry,  and  that  modern 
prelatical  bishops  are  their  successors  in  office. 
*'  The  real  ground  of  our  authority,"  say  the  Tract 
writers,  ^^  is  oux  apostolical  descent^'' — "our  bish- 
ops are  successors  of  the  apostles.'''*  Bishop  On- 
derdonk  speaks  of  "  the  bishops,  who  succeed  the 
apostles.''^  And  to  these,  I  shall  add  a  somewhat 
extended  passage,  from  Dr.  Hicks  on  the  Dignity 
of  the  Episcopal  Order — which  will  not  only  ex- 
hibit the  position  taken,  on  this  point,  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  high-church  episcopacy,  but  also  illus- 
trate the  spirit,  which  this  lofty  claim  is  adapted 
to  engender — "  Bishops  are  appointed  to  succeed 
the  Apostles;  and,  like  them,  to  stand  in  Christ's 
place,  and  exercise  his  kingly,  priestly,  and  pro- 
phetical office  over  their  flocks.  Can  you,  when 
you  consider  this,  think  it  novel,  or  improper,  or 
uncouth,  to  call  them  spiritual  ^nVice^,  and  their 
dioceses  principalities,  vv^hen  they  have  every 
thing  in  their  office  which  can  denominate  a 
prince  ?  For  what  is  a  prince,  but  a  chief  ruler 
of  a  society,  that  hath  authority  over  the  rest,  to 
make  laws  for  it,  to  challenge  the  obedience  of  all 
the  members,  and  all  ranks   of  men  in  it,  and 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  73 

power  to  coerce  them,  if  they  will  not  obey." — 
*'  They  stand  in  God's  and  Christ's  stead  over 
their  flocks,  the  clergy  as  well  as  the  people  are 
to  be  subject  to  them,  as  to  the  vicegerents  of  our 
Lord." — ''  The  successors  of  the  apostles^  the  bish- 
ops, like  sph'itual^rmces,  exercise  the  same  coer- 
cive authority  that  they  did  in  inflicting  spiritual 
censures  upon  their  disobedient  subjects.  It 
would  require  a  volume,  to  show  you  the  various 
punishments,  with  which  they  corrected  their  dis- 
obedience. They  degraded  clergymen  from  their 
order,  and  as  for  the  people,  they  put  down  those 
who  were  in  the  uppermost  class  of  communion 
into  the  station  of  penitents,  and  other  inferior 
places ;  others  they  forbade  to  come  farther  than 
the  church  doors,  and  those  whom  they  did  not  so 
degrade,  they  often  suspended  from  the  sacra- 
ment. The  contumacious,  both  of  the  clergy  and 
laity,  they  punished  with  excommunication  ;  from 
which,  after  very  long  and  very  severe  penances, 
they  absolved  some  ;  and  others,  who  were  enor- 
mous, and  very  frequent  lapsers,  they  would  not 
reconcile  to  the  peace  of  the  church,  but  in  the 
danger  and  prospect  of  death.  I  need  not  tell 
you  how  much  the  ancient  christians  stood  in  awe 
of  the  APOSTOLIC  ROD  in  the  hands  of  their  bishops^ 
especially  of  excommunication,  which  they  look- 
ed upon  as  the  spiritual  ax  and  sword  to  the  soul, 
7 


74  DISCOURSES    ON 

and  thought  more  terrible  than  death. "^  Here 
is  the  true  genius  and  tendency  of  the  system ! 
The  fruit  is  in  keeping  with  the  nature  of  the  tree ! 
Establish  the  fact,  in  regard  to  any  individual, 
that  he  is  a  veritable  successor  of  the  great  apos- 
tles, and  what  degrees  of  prerogative  and  power, 
in  spiritual  things,  may  he  not  be  expected  to 
claim?  You  have  put  him  on  a  level  immeasura- 
bly above  that  which  is  occupied  by  ordinary 
men ;  and  before  his  high  authority,  Avho  should 
hesitate  to  bow  with  humble  and  unresisting  sub- 
mission ? 

We  proceed,  however,  to  an  examination  of 
the  grounds,  on  which  this  enormous  claim  is  sup- 
posed to  rest. — It  is  not  maintained,  of  course, 
that  prelatical  bishops  are  like  the  apostles  in  all 
respects ;  because,  in  this  unqualified  and  naked 
form,  the  claim  would  refute  itself.  They  had 
prerogatives  and  powers  of  certain  kinds,  which 
none,  since  their  day,  have  pretended  to  exercise. 
And  the  first  efl'ort  of  those,  who  advocate  the 
doctrine  of  an  identity  between  them  and  modern 
bishops  is,  to  set  aside,  as  not  essential  to  the  na- 
ture of  the  apostolic  office,  all  those  things  in  re- 
spect to  which  it  is  clearly  impossible  that  other 
persons  could  be  supposed  to  resemble  them. 
The  argument  is,  that  the  characteristic  nature  of 

*  Quoted  by  Powell,  fr.  Lond.  ed.  1707,  pp.  191,  &c. 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  75 

their  office  is  to  be  learned  exclusively  from  their 
commission;  and  their  whole  commission  is  sup- 
posed to  be  contained  in  the  following  words — 
"  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things,  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  ; 
and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end 
of  the  world."  Referring  to  this  passage  alone, 
a  distinguished  defender  of  the  system  says — 
"  The  authentic  voucher  of  office  is  the  commis- 
sion. To  the  commission  of  the  apostles,  then, 
we  must  refer  you  for  the  distinctive  peculiarities 
of  their  office.  Whatever  is  not  contained  there- 
in^ either  expressly,  or  by  necessary  inference, 
must  be  considered  as  not  pertaining  to  the  cha- 
racteristic duties  and  powers  of  the  apostles." 

Now,  if  leave  were  granted  to  deal  with  the 
apostolical  office  in  this  way,  it  is  not  denied,  that 
some  portion  of  the  absurdity,  which  must  other- 
wise attach  to  the  claim  in  question,  might  be 
avoided.  Allow  an  individual  to  construct  a  pat- 
tern to  suit  himself,  and  he  may  have  no  difficulty 
in  producing  a  likeness  between  one  thing  and 
another.  But  where  is  the  authority  for  dispos- 
ing of  the  apostolical  character,  and  office,  in  this 
way  ?  We  grant,  if  you  please,  that  "the  authen- 
tic voucher  of  office  is  the  commission'''' ;  but  the 


76  DISCOURSES    ON 

question  arises  here — Does  the  passage  above  re- 
ferred to  contain  the  only  commission  which  was 
given  to  the  apostles ;  or  their  commission,  in 
such  a  sense,  as  to  exclude  every  thing  else  which 
was  said  to  them,  in  the  way  of  indicating  their 
powers  and  duties  ?  Here  lies  a  fallacy,  to  which, 
it  is  important,  your  attention  should  be  directed. 
The  word  ''  commission''''  is  not  a  scriptural  Avord, 
in  this  relation ;  and,  in  its  technical  sense,  has 
no  application  to  this  subject  at  all.  The  same 
thing  may  be  said  of  the  word  "  office.''''  In  their 
unrestricted  or  popular  meaning,  there  can  be  no 
objection  to  the  use  of  either.  But,  if  we  insist 
upon  confining  the  former  to  any  one  item  of  the 
Saviour's  directions  to  his  apostles,  as  distinguish- 
ed from  others ;  and  the  latter,  to  any  particular 
portion  of  the  duties,  or  services,  which  he  called 
them  to  perform,  we  take  liberties  Avith  the  sacred 
record  which  are  unauthorised  and  unfair.  Let  the 
word  "  commission"  be  understood  so  as  to  cover 
all  the  declarations  of  Christ  as  to  what  his  apos- 
tles were  to  do,  ivherever  they  are  found ;  and 
the  word  "  office,"  so  as  to  include  all  the  duties 
and  services  Avhich,  as  his  messengers,  they  were 
expected  to  perform  :  and  then  we  shall  be  in  no 
danger  of  going  astray. 

And  is  not  this  rule  of  interpretation  obviously 
and  undeniably  just  ?     Who  has  a  right  to  single 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  7? 

out  one  passage,  from  the  multitude  that  bear  on 
the  prerogatives  and  powers  of  the  Apostles,  and 
dignify  it  with  the  name  of  their  ''  commission," 
to  the  exclusion  of  all  others  ?  If  any  distinction 
is  allowed,  here,  it  should  rather  be  in  favor  of 
what  was  said,  when  they  were  first  appointed. 
Surely,  the  time  of  their  ordination  was  the  prop- 
er time,  for  announcing  the  nature  of  the  office  to 
which  they  were  ordained.  And  yet,  if  we  ad- 
mit this,  we  are  compelled  to  allow,  that  some 
important  things  are  included  in  their  office,  which 
are  not  referred  to,  in  the  language  uttered  by 
the  Saviour  immediately  before  his  ascension. 
The  record  states,  that  "He  ordained  twelve,  that 
they  should  be  with  him,  and  that  he  might  send 
them  forth  to  preach,  and  to  have  power  to  heal 
sicknesses  and  to  cast  out  devils,''^  According  to 
this,  to  heal  sicknesses,  and  cast  out  devils,  were 
things  which  they  were  expressly  ordained  to  do  ; 
and,  if  they  were  ordained  to  do  them,  were  they 
not  commissioned  to  do  them  ;  and,  if  they  were 
commissioned  to  do  them,  were  they  not  things 
which  formed  a  part  of  their  office  ?  To  acknow- 
ledge this,  would  be  fatal  to  the  succession 
scheme  ;  because  these  are  prerogatives,  in  refer- 
ence to  Avhich,  no  hkeness  could existheiween  the 
apostles,  and  any  successors.  And  hence  the 
7* 


78  DISCOURSES    ON 

effort  to  restrict  their  commission  and  office  to 
such  limits,  as  may  suit  the  emergency. 

In  farther  investigating  the  apostleship  of  pre- 
latical  bishops,  then,  we  shall  proceed,  luithout 
restriction,  to  set  before  you  the  various  things 
appertaining  to  their  character  and  calling,  as 
they  are  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament  histo- 
ry ;  and  shall  show  you,  in  relation  to  each  in  its 
turn,  that,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  they  can  have 
no  successors. 

Bear  in  mind,  as  Ave  enter  upon  this  investiga- 
tion, that  the  word  "  apostle"  signifies  a  messen- 
ger, or  one  who  is  sent.  This  is  its  general  mean- 
ing ;  and,  as  applied  to  "///e  tivelve,''^  it  is  re- 
stricted by  the  expression,  ''the  apostles  of 
Christ.^^  With  this  restriction,  it  is  never  applied 
to  any  others.  Any  one  who  is  sent,  may  be 
properly  denominated  an  "  apostle,"  without  re- 
gard either  to  the  errand  on  which  he  is  sent,  or 
the  'person  who  sends  him.  But  an  apostle  of 
Christ,  is  one  who  derives  his  character  from  the 
fact,  that  he  is  sent  by  Christ  himself,  or  that 
Christ  is  the  person  who  calls  him  to  the  service, 
which  he  is  directed  to  perform. 

"We  commence,  then,  by  remarking,  that  no 
one  can  be  an  apostle  of  Christ,  who  has  not  re- 
ceived   AN    IMMEDIATE    AND    PERSONAL    CALL     FROM 

Christ  himself.     This  was  the  actual  fact,  in  re- 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  79 

gard  to  every  individual  who  belonged  to  the 
apostolical  college.  There  was  no  intervention 
of  any  human,  or  angelic,  agency  in  the  matter — 
no  ordination  by  the  imposition  of  hands — no  ris- 
ing through  inferior  grades  by  the  performance  of 
any  visible  ceremony.  The  whole  truth  is  stated 
by  Paul,  when  he  calls  himself  "  an  apostle,  not 
of  men  neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ,'''' 
This  carries  us  back  to  the  account  of  the  transac- 
tion, as  related  by  himself.  Acts  xxvi.  He  was 
on  his  way  from  Jerusalem  to  Damascus,  in  the 
character  of  a  persecutor.  A  light  shone  around 
him,  at  mid-day,  above  the  brightness  of  the  sun. 
And  he  heard  a  voice  speaking  to  him — which 
was  none  other  than  the  voice  of  Jesus  whom  he 
was  persecuting — and  saying,  '•  I  have  appeared 
unto  thee /or  this  purpose^  to  make  thee  a  minis- 
ter, and  a  witness,  both  of  these  things  which  thou 
hast  seen,  and  of  those  things  in  the  which  I  Avili 
appear  unto  thee ;  delivering  thee  from  the  peo- 
ple, and  from  the  Gentiles,  unto  whom  now  / 
send  {d'jroffrs/iZu)  thee.^^  Here  is  a  distinct  recogni- 
tion of  the  fact,  that  he  was  made  an  apostle  by 
Christ,  and  that  this  was  the  one  purpose  for 
which  Christ  appeared  to  him  in  this  extraordina- 
ry manner.  Without  this,  he  might  have  been 
an  apostle  of  soine  other  individual,  but  he  could 
not  have  been  an  apostle  of  Christ, — Similar  to 


80  DISCOURSES    ON 

this,  as  to  the  source  from  which  it  came,  was  the 
vocation  of  all  the  rest.  Christ  appeared  to  them 
in  person — spake  to  them  with  his  own  voice, 
and  said,  "  Come,  follow  me.  And  they  arose, 
left  all,  and  followed  him." 

Here,  then,  we  find,  in  the  outset,  a  wide  and 
irreconcilable  difference  between  the  apostles  of 
Christ,  and  the  superior  order  in  the  episcopacy 
of  modern  times.  The  mode  of  introduction  to 
their  work  is  not,  and  never  can  be,  the  same,  un- 
less the  age  of  miracles  should  return.  The  for- 
mer were  called  by  Christ  in  pej'son,  and  were 
raised  to  their  station  immediately ;  but  nothing 
of  this  occurs  in  the  appointment  of  prelatical 
bishops.  They  have  never  heard  the  voice  of 
Christ,  designating  them  to  their  office  ;  nor  would 
such  a  designation  be  consistent  with  the  indis- 
pensable requirements  of  their  system.  No  pro- 
ceeding could  be  more  fundamentally  uncannoni- 
cal,  than  to  appoint  and  consecrate  as  Bishop, 
one  who  had  not  been  previously  both  a  Deacon, 
and  a  Priest.  And  therefore,  there  is  not  only 
the  want  of  a  perfect  likeness,  here,  to  the  mode 
of  constituting  the  apostleship,  but  a  dissimilarity 
which  extends  to  the  most  important  and  essential 
feature. 

The  next  thing  we  notice,  as  characterising  the 
apostles   of  Christ,  is,  that  they  received   their 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  81 

INSTRUCTIONS  DIRECTLY  FROM  HIM,  and  wcrc  there- 
by qualified  to  speak  with  a  degree  of  authority, 
to  which  no  other  teachers  could  lay  a  reasonable 
claim.  Paul,  in  referring  to  the  source  from 
which  he  derived  his  knowledge  of  the  gospel, 
says — "I  neither  received  it  of  man,  neither  was 
I  taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ.'^'' 
And  this  was  equally  true  of  those  who  wxre  in 
the  office  before  him.  What  he  received  in  a 
more  miraculous  way,  after  the  Saviour's  ascen- 
sion, they  had  learned  from  their  personal  inter- 
course with  him  during  his  ministry  upon  earth. 
They  were  called  to  be  '^  tvith  him,^^  before  he 
^' sent  them  forth  to  preach";  and  this  implied, 
that  he  was  to  be  their  instructor  immediately  and 
personally.  They  were  hence  called  emphatical- 
ly "  his  disciples''^ — learners  in  his  schoo] — per- 
sons whom  he  had  undertaken  to  teach,  with  a 
view  of  qualifying  them  for  the  work  on  which 
they  were  to  enter,  after  his  departure.  And 
this  was  the  circumstance  which  prepared  them 
to  speak  with  so  much  confidence,  in  delivering 
the  truth  to  their  fellow  men.  "  We  have  seen,^ 
says  the  apostle  John,  "  and  do  testify^  that  the 
Father  sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the 
world."  None  others  had  been  furnished  with 
their  opportunities  of  knowing  the  truth,  and 
therefore  none  could  bear  witness  to  it,  with  that 


82  DISCOURSES    ON 

air  of  assurance  with  which  they  were  entitled  to 
speak. 

And  this  presents  another  peculiarity,  in  respect 
to  which  no  likeness  can  be  found  to  the  charac- 
ter and  calling  of  modern  bishops.  They  have 
no  means  of  access  to  the  mind  of  Christ,  which 
are  not  free  to  all  w^ho  possess  the  scriptures. 
The  days  of  personal  intercourse  between  men 
and  the  Great  Teacher  are  past. — He  has  taken 
his  departure  from  the  earth — and  the  heavens 
have  received  Him,  "  until  the  times  of  the  resti- 
tution of  all  things." 

As  in  keeping  with  the  source  from  which  they 
derived  their  instructions^  the  apostles  of  Christ 
were  infallible  as  public  teachers.  They  were 
sure  that  what  they  communicated,  in  this  capaci- 
ty, was  the  truth  of  God ;  and  therefore  they  had 
no  hesitation  in  saying,  in  regard  to  the  person 
who  should  preach  "  any  other  gospel"  than  that 
which  they  preached — though  he  should  be  "an 
angel  from  heaven" — "  let  him  be  accursed^  If 
they  had  been  liable  to  the  errors  into  which  ordi- 
nary men  are  prone  to  fall,  they  would  have  lack- 
ed the  necessary  qualification  for  an  essential  part 
of  their  work.  Tliey  were  appointed  to  act  "  in 
Chrisfs  stead" — to  carry  out  what  he  had  begun, 
in  reference  to  the  establishment  of  his  church  in 
the  world — to  deliver  to  mankind  such  views  of 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  83 

truth  as  were  to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice 
till  the  end  of  time — or,  in  other  words,  to  make 
such  additions  to  the  Saviour's  personal  teaching 
as  were  needful  to  complete  the  volume  of  that 
*'  scripture,"  which  was  to  be  appealed  to  forever, 
as  "  given  by  inspiration  of  God."  This  was  a 
leading  design  of  their  calling — they  were  the 
messengers,  or  missionaries,  of  Christ  for  this 
purpose — and,  faihng  in  this,  they  Avould  not  have 
answered,  either  to  their  name,  or  to  the  end  of 
their  appointment. 

How,  then,  can  any  be  regarded  as  their  suc- 
cessors in  office,  who  are  neither  called  to  the 
same  work,  nor  possess  the  essential  qualification 
for  its  performance.  If  modern  bishops  would 
establish  their  claim  to  an  identity  with  them,  let 
them  produce  the  proof  of  their  infallibility  as 
teachers,  and  show  that  their  instructions  are  en- 
titled to  be  regarded  as  the  word  of  God  to  all 
the  generations  of  men.  Nothing  short  of  this 
can  suffice,  because  nothing  below  this  would  fill 
the  place  which  was  occupied  by  the  apostles  of 
Christ. 

Another  thing,  which  the  Apostles  were  "or- 
dained" to  do — and  which  must  therefore  have 
been  a  part  of  their  office — was  to  work  mira- 
cles; or,  as  expressed  in  the  language  used  at 
the  time  of  their  appointment,  ''  to  heal  sicknesses 


84  DISCOURSES    ON 

and  to  cast  out  devils,'^^  An  office,  embracing 
this  prerogative,  was  all  imporant  to  the  first  esta- 
blishment of  the  gospel.  Miracles  were  needed 
to  prove,  that  its  teachers  were  divinely  sent. 
They  were  visible  evidences  of  the  presence  and 
approbation  of  God;  and,  as  furnishing  proof  that 
no  one  unattended  by  such  evidence  could  be 
properly  regarded  as  a  true  apostle,  we  find  Paul 
referring  expressly  to  his  miraculous  works,  as  the 
SIGNS  of  his  apostleship.  To  the  Corinthians  he 
says — ''  Truly  the  signs  of  an.  apostle  were 
wrought  among  you,  in  all  patience,  in  signs,  and 
ivonders,  and  mighty  deeds.''''  Those,  therefore, 
who  claim  a  share  in  his  office,  are  bound,  in  all 
consistency,  to  produce  the  same  signs.  Let 
them  do  this,  and  their  claim  will  not  be  rejected; 
but,  failing  to  produce  the  signs,  there  surely  can 
be  no  cause  of  complaint,  if  the  thing  signified 
should  not  be  awarded  upon  the  mere  ground  of 
their  unsupported  pretensions. 

It  is  no  answer  to  this,  to  say  that  miraculous 
powers  were  not  pecidiar  to  the  Apostles,  but 
were  possessed  and  exercised  by  others,  as  Ste- 
phen and  Phillip,  to  whom  the  name  "  apostle" 
was  not  given.  This  may  be  admitted,  without 
at  all  affecting  our  argument.  The  question  is 
not,  whether  such  powers  belonged  to  the  Apos- 
tles alo7ie,  but  whether  an  individual,  who  did  not 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  85 

possess  them,  could  be  an  apostle  ?  Our  position 
is,  that  they  Avere  inseparably  connected  with  the 
office ;  and  that  none,  who  could  not  appeal  to 
them,  in  proof  of  their  mission,  had  any  reason  to 
expect,  that  they  would  be  received  as  apostles 
of  Christ.  This,  it  is  presumed,  will  not  be  de- 
nied. And  we  therefore  insist  upon  it,  as  fair 
and  scriptural,  that,  if  prelatical  bishops  are  unen- 
dowed with  miraculous  power,  the  conclusion  is 
inevitable,  that  they  have  not  succeeded  to  the 
apostolical  office. 

In  connection  with  miraculous  power,  as  put 
forth  by  themselves,  they  had  also  the  prerogative 
of  conferring  these  powers  upon  others.  Paul 
laid  his  hands  on  certain  disciples  at  Corinth ; 
and,  receiving  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  "  spake  with 
tongues  and  prophesied."  And  Peter  and  John 
are  represented,  as  having  done  the  same,  in  the 
case  of  those  who  received  the  word  of  God  in 
Samaria. — To  this  endowment,  modern  bishops 
can  make  no  pretensions  ;  and  this  interposes  an- 
other line  of  dissimilarity  between  their  office, 
and  that  of  the  Apostles. 

Advancing  another  step,  we  find  it  to  be  a 
prominent  feature  of  the  apostolical  office,  that 
those  who  bore  it  were  to  be  witnesses  of  the  ^) 
RESURRECTION  OF  Christ.  This  is  declared,  ex- 
pressly, to  have  been  the  purpose  for  which  they 
8 


86  DISCOURSES    ON 

were  ''  chosen  of  God."  And  there  is  no  other 
end  of  then  appointment  so  frequently  and  em- 
phatically referred  to.  "  Him,"  says  the  Apos- 
tle Peter,  "  God  raised  np  the  third  day  and 
showed  him  openly  ;  not  to  all  the  people,  but 
unto  ivitnesses  chosen  before  of  God,  even  to  us, 
who  did  eat  and  drink  with  him  after  he  rose  from 
the  dead."  Nothing  could  be  more  explicit  than 
this.  And,  after  reading  this  passage,  we  may 
well  be  surprised,  that  the  ground  should  ever 
have  been  taken,  that,  to  bear  witness  to  the  re- 
surrection of  Christ,  is  no  part  of  the  office  to 
which  the  Apostles  were  called. 

That  the  Apostles  themselves  understood  this 
to  be  the  main  thing  to  which  they  were  set  apart, 
is  sufficiently  evident  from  the  language  of  Peter 
at  the  election  of  Matthias.  He  spoke,  on  that 
occasion,  of  the  apostacy  and  death  of  Judas, 
who  had  been  one  of  their  number ;  and  of  the 
propriety  of  filling  the  vacancy,  by  the  choice  of 
another.  It  was  a  fit  occasion  for  showing  who 
were  eligible  to  the  office,  as  well  as  for  pointing 
out  the  true  nature  and  desigyi  of  the  office  itself. 
And,  in  reference  to  these  points,  his  words  are 
these — "Wherefore,  of  these  men  which  have 
companied  with  us,  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Avent  in  and  out  among  us,  beginning  from 
the  baptism  of  John,   unto  that  same  day  that  he 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  87 

was  taken  up  from  us,  must  one  be  ordained  to 
be  a  witness  avith  us  of  his  resurrection."  This 
is  the  same  as  to  say — 'ive  have  been  ordained, 
to  be  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ — an- 
other must  now  be  ordained  to  this  office,  in  the 
room  of  Judas — and  none  are  qualified^  but  those 
who  companied  with  us,  while  Christ  was  among 
us.'  The  clear  import  of  this,  in  connection  with 
the  former  passage,  is,  that  the  apostles  of  Christ 
were  chosen  to  be  '•^  ivith  him'^  Avhile  he  lived, 
and  to  "  eat  and  drinkioith  him  after  he  rose  from 
the  dead,"  that,  after  his  ascension,  they  might 
go  forth  into  all  the  world,  and  testify,  from  their 
personal  knoivledge^  that  he  had  risen  from  the 
dead. 

That  this  is  the  true  interpretation,  is  farther 
evident,  from  the  circumstances  attending  the  call- 
ing of  the  Apostle  Paul.  He  had  not  "  compa- 
nied" with  those  who  had  been  the  companions 
of  Christ,  either  during  his  life,  or  between  the 
events  of  his  resurrection  and  ascension  ;  and,  of 
course,  in  the  ordinary  way,  he  could  not  be  a 
witness,  from  personal  observatiou,  to  the  fact 
that  he  had  risen.  To  supply  what  was  wanting, 
in  this  respect,  therefore,  a  miracle  must  be 
wrought.  He  must  see  the  risen  Jesus  with  his 
own  eyes,  and  receive  instruction  from  him  di- 
rectly, before  he  could  be  an  apostle.      And,  to 


88  DISCOURSES    ON 

this  end,  the  ascended  Saviour  appeared  to  him 
in  the  natural  heaven,  surrounded  by  a  superna- 
tural light — spake  to  him  in  an  audible  voice — 
arrested  him  in  his  persecuting  career — and  turn- 
ed his  attention  and  affections  to  the  new  work  to 
which  he  was  called.  From  that  time  he  was 
qualified  to  bear  a  part  in  the  apostolical  work  : 
because,  as  he  himself  expresses  it,  in  reporting 
the  words  of  Ananias,  he  had  been  permitted  to 
^'  SEE  that  Just  One,"  and  ''  hear  the  voice  of  his 
mouth."  He  could  now  go  abroad  with  the  oth- 
er apostles,  and  preach  the  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
as  a  truth  established  by  the  testimony  of  his  own 
senses.  And,  accordingly,  in  referring  to  this 
qualification  afterAvards,  he  says — "  Am  I  not  an 
apostle?  Have  I  not  seen  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord"? 

As  in  keeping  with  this  view  of  the  subject,  it 
appears,  from  the  record  of  the  subsequent  labors 
of  these  men,  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was 
their  prominent  theme — "  This  Jesus  hath  God 
raised  up,  Avhereof  we  are  ivitnesses^^ — "  And  we 
are  witnesses  of  these  things" — "  If  Christ  be  not 
risen,  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your  faith 
is  also  vain.  Yea  and  we  are  iound  false  loitnesses 
of  God ;  because  ice  have  testified  of  God  that 
he  raised  up  Christ."  This  great  truth  is  the  key- 
stone in  the  arch  of  the  christian  system  ;  and  it 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSIOX.  89 

was  needful,  that  credible  and  well  qualified  wit- 
nesses should  be  brought  to  support  it.  For  this 
purpose  the  apostles  of  Christ  Avere  chosen — to 
this  work  they  were  ''ordained" — and,  in  refer- 
ence to  it,  they  could  say,  what  could  not  be  said 
by  others  :  "  that  which  we  have  seen,  and  heard, 
declare  we  unto  you." 

Need  I  remind  you,  that,  in  respect  to  this  part 
of  their  work,  they  could  have  no  successors  ;  and 
therefore,  that  the  claim  of  prelatical  bishops  to 
the  inheritance  of  their  office,  must  be  set  aside, 
here  also,  as  visionary  and  baseless  ?  If  they  are 
in  the  same  office,  they  are  surely  entitled  to  chal- 
lenge the  attention  of  mankind  to  the  fact  in  the 
same  ivay  ;  and  this  would  represent  them  as  say- 
ing— '  Are  we  not  apostles  ?  Have  we  not  seen 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  ?  We  have  testified  of  God 
that  he  raised  up  Chrisfl  But,  as  none  would 
venture  upon  the  use  of  such  language,  neither 
should  any  pretend  that  they  are  successors  in 
office  to  the  individual,  by  whom  it  was  uttered. 

The  only  remaining  fact,  appertaining  to  the 
office  of  the  apostles  of  Christ,  to  wliich  I  refer 
you,  in  this  connection,  is,  that  their  number  was 
DEFINITE  and  SPECIFIED — thcrc  wcrc  ouly  tavelve 
— and  this  number  was  not  to  be  increased. 
''  Jesus  said,  have  I  not  chosen  you  twelve''^? 
And  the  ivord  "  twelve"  was  the  name  by  which 
8* 


90  Discourses  on 

they  were  constantly  known.  In  the  absence  of 
other  proof,  it  might,  indeed,  be  admitted  as  pro- 
bable, that  this  name  was  intended  only  to  mark 
their  number  during  the  ministry  of  Christ.  But 
there  are  other  passages  which  clearly  show,  that 
this  limitation  of  its  meaning  is  not  to  be  allowed. 
In  Matthew  xix.  28,  it  is  thus  recorded — "  And 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  that 
ye  which  have  followed  me  in  the  regeneration, 
when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  in  the  throne  of  his 
glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones,  judg- 
ing the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  Now,  it  mat- 
ters but  little,  what  these  "  thrones,"  and  this 
*' judging,"  maybe  supposed  to  describe.  It  is 
clear  enough,  in  any  event,  that  the  scene  is  laid 
at  the  end  of  the  world ;  and,  while  these  words 
refer  to  some  distinction  which  is  to  be  conferred 
upon  the  apostles  of  Christ,  the  whole  passage 
proceeds  upon  the  assumption,  that  their  number 
then,  as  it  was  in  the  beginning,  will  be  only 
"  twelve^  There  will  still  be  a  correspondence, 
in  this  respect,  between  them,  and  the  "twelve 
tribes  of  Israel";  and  therefore  "  twelve  thrones" 
will  be  sufficient  for  their  accommodation. — Of  the 
same  tenor  is  the  passage  which  occurs  in  the  de- 
scription of  the  New  Jerusalem,  Rev.  xxi.  14. 
''  And  the  wall  of  the  city  had  twelve  foundations, 
and  in  them  the  names  of  the  twelve  apostles  of 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  91 

the  LambJ^  Here  we  are  transported,  not  only 
to  the  end  of  time,  but  to  the  visions  of  eternity. 
"  The  first  heaven,  and  the  first  earth,"  have  pass- 
ed away,  and  there  is  "no  more  sea" — "  the  ta- 
bernacle of  God  is  with  men,"  and  he  dwells 
*' among  them" — "the  great  city,  the  holy  Jeru- 
salem," has  descended  "out  of  heaven  from  God" 
— and  "  the  nations  of  them  which  are  saved  walk 
in  the  light  of  it":  and  still  the  number  of  the 
apostles  is  only  iivelve.  This  was  their  number 
at  first,  and  it  will  not  be  extended,  either  by  the 
events  of  time,  or  in  the  records  of  eternity. 

It  is  no  objection  to  this  vicAv  of  the  subject  to 
say,  that  the  word  "  apostle"  is  actually  applied, 
in  the  New  Testament,  to  several  persons  in  addi- 
tion to  the  original  "  twelve."  In  its  unrestrict- 
ed sense,  as  signifying  in  general  a  messenger,  we 
acknowledge  this  to  be  true.  Any  one  who  goes 
on  an  errand  of  any  description,  at  the  bidding  of 
another,  may  be  called  an  apostle,  because  he  is 
one  who  is  sent.  In  this  unofficial  sense,  it  is  ap- 
phed  to  Epaphroditus:  he  is  called  the  "  messen- 
ger" (aTToo'To/ov)  of  the  church  at  Phillippi,  because 
he  was  sent  by  them,  as  the  bearer  of  what  they 
had  collected  for  the  use  of  Paul,  while  he  was  in 
bonds  at  Rome.  Phil.  ii.  25,  and  iv.  18. — This 
is  the  sense  in  which  it  is  applied  to  Christ,  when 
he  is  called  "  the  Apostle,  and  High  Priest  of  our 


92  DISCOURSES    ON 

profession."  It  designates  him,  in  general,  as 
the  sent  of  God — as  the  Messenger  of  Jehovah  to 
the  inhabitants  of  our  Avorld. — In  the  same  sense, 
it  is  apphed  to  Barnabas,  who  was  "se/i^"  on  a 
special  mission  in  company  with  Paul. — But,  in 
its  restricted  and  official  sense,  it  is  never  applied 
to  any  but  "  the  twelve."  They  alone  are  called 
*'  THE  apostles" — ''  the  apostles  of  Christ,"  and 
''  the  apostles  of  the  Lamb,"  to  distinguish  them 
from  all  inferior  messengers  who  are,  or  may  be, 
sent  by  others.  There  are  two  cases,  indeed,  in 
reference  to  which  the  attempt  is  made  to  show, 
that  these  phrases  do  include  others.  T^h.^  first  is 
in  Rom.  xvi.  7,  where  Paul  says — ''  Salute  An- 
dronicus  and  Junia,  my  kinsmen,  who  are  of  note 
'among  the  Apostles^  But  this  obviously  means, 
not  that  these  persons  were  numbered  ivith  the 
apostles,  but  only  that  they  were  held  in  high  es- 
timation by  the  apostles.  The  second  is  in  the 
first  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians.  In  chap.  i.  1, 
Paul,  Silvanus,  and  Timotheus  are  represented 
as  uniting  in  the  salutation  to  the  Thessalonian 
church.  And,  in  chap.  ii.  6,  the  following  lan- 
guage occurs — "Nor  of  men  sought  we  glory,  nei- 
ther of  you,  nor  yet  of  others,  when  we  migh 
have  been  burdensome  as  the  apostles  of  Christ. '^^ 
Here,  it  is  said,  that  the  word  "zi^e"  includes  all 
the  persons  who  are  mentioned  in  the  salutation, 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  93 

and  that,  speaking  conjointly^  they  call  themselves 
the  apostles  of  Christ.  But  the  answer  to  this  is, 
that,  in  this,  as  in  all  his  other  epistles,  the  Apos- 
tle, in  speaking  of  himself,  uses  sometimes  the 
plural  "  i(;e,"  and  sometimes  the  singular  "  J," 
— changing,  not  unfrequently,  in  the  same  pass- 
age, from  one  to  the  other.  Take  an  instance, 
from  chap.  ii.  18,  "Wherefore  we  w^ould  have 
come  unto  you,  even  I  Paul  once  and  again  ;  but 
Satan  hindered  us."  Another  may  be  found  in 
chap.  iv.  13 — 15.  He  also  says,  chap.  v.  1,  23, 
27,  "  /write  unto  you" — "/  charge  you,"  &c.; 
from  all  which  it  is  undeniably  evident,  that  the 
epistle  was  not  ^  joint  communication,  but  as  ex- 
clusively the  letter  of  Paul,  as  any  he  ever  wrote. 
When  he  uses  the  plural  '^  we,"  therefore,  in  re- 
ference to  "  the  apostles  of  Christ,"  the  fair  in- 
terpretation is,  that  he  speaks  of  himself^  as  one  of 
their  number;  and  that  his  object,  in  the  passage 
referred  to,  is  to  state  what  he  might  have  done, 
if  he  had  been  so  disposed,  upon  the  ground  that 
he  ivas  an  apostle,  or  in  i;zV^?^e  o/ the  apostolic 
office,  with  which  he  and  his  associates  were  in" 
vested. 

We  believe  it  then,  to  be  a  position  which  can- 
not be  assailed  with  success, — that  none  are  call- 
ed indefinitely  "  THE  apostles,"  "  the  apostles  of 
Christ,"  or  "  the  apostles  of  the  Lamb,"  except- 


94  DISCOURSES    ON 

ing  ''  the  twelve^''''  who  were  ordained  to  their 
work  immediately  and  personally  by  Christ  him- 
self. 

In  taking  this  ground,  however,  we  are  not  un- 
mindful, that  a  difficulty  may  seem  to  present  it- 
self, growing  out  of  the  case  of  Paul  himself.  In 
him,  it  may  be  said,  we  actually  find  a  thirteenth 
apostle  ;  since  the  place,  vacated  by  the  apostacy 
of  Judas,  was  filled  by  the  election  of  Matthias, 
before  he  was  converted.  This  involves  the  dis- 
puted question  whether  Matthias  ever  ivas  num- 
bered among  ''  the  twelve,"  by  divine  direction? 
The  negative  of  this  question  is  maintained  by  re- 
spectable names  ;  and  the  more  we  reflect  upon 
the  circumstances  attending  his  election,  the  more 
we  incline  to  the  belief,  that  this  is  the  side  on 
which  the  truth  lies.  Dr.  M' Night  expresses 
his  opinion,  without  any  reference  to  the  general 
subject  we  are  now  discussing,  in  the  following 
language, — ''  One  of  the  apostles,  Judas  by  name, 
having  fallen  from  his  office  by  transgression,  the 
eleven  judged  it  necessary  to  supply  his  place ; 
and,  for  that  purpose,  chose  Matthias  by  lot.  In 
this,  however,  they  acted  not  by  the  direction  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  for  he  was  not  yet  given  to  them, 
but  merely  by  the  dictates  of  human  prudence, 
which,  on  that  occasion  seem  to  have  carried  them 
too  far.     No  man,   nor  body   of  men  whatever. 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  95 

could,  by  their  designation,  confer  an  office  whose 
authority  bound  the  consciences  of  all  men,  and 
whose  duties  could  not  be  performed  without  the 
gifts  of  inspiration  and  miracles.  To  ordain  an 
apostle  belonged  to  Christ  alone,  Avho,  with  the 
appointment,  could  also  give  the  supernatural 
powers  necessary  to  the  function.  Some  time, 
therefore,  after  the  election  of  Matthias,  Jesus 
himself  seems  to  have  superceded  it,  by  appoint- 
ing another  to  be  his  apostle  and  witness  in 
the  place  of  Judas."* 

These  views  are  certainly  too  natural,  and  ad- 
dress themselves  too  strongly  to  the  understand- 
ing of  the  unbiased  reader,  to  be  treated  lightly. 
And,  in  enlarging  upon  them,  I  ask  your  candid 
attention  to  the  following  considerations. 

1.  The  i7iterval  of  time,  during  which  this 
transaction  occurred.  It  was  the  period  between 
the  ascension  of  Christ,  and  the  descent  of  the 
Spirit.  And  the  manner  in  which  the  apostles 
were  to  spend  this  period,  they  were  not  left  to 
determine  for  themselves.  They  had  received 
directions  on  this  subject  from  their  ascending 
Master.  And  what  loere  those  directions  ?  Not 
that  they  should  go  forward,  at  once,  to  any  part 
of  the  work  to  which  they  Avere  called  ;  but  that 
they  should  "wait" — "  wait /br   the  promise  of 

*  Work  on  the  Epistles,  vol.  i.  p.  50. 


96  DISCOURSES    ON 

THE  Father" — remain  in  quiet  and  prayerful  ex- 
pectation of  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who 
was  to  ^'omDE"  them  "  into  all  truth,"  and  indue 
them  with  the  qualifications  necessary  for  their  of- 
ficial duties.  But,  instead  of  waiting,  Peter,  with 
a  precipitation  characteristic  of  himself,  proposed 
the  measure,  which  was  carried  out  under  his  di- 
rection, and  which  resulted  in  numbering  Mat- 
thias with  the  eleven  apostles. 

2.  The  PERSONS  who  ivere  the  active  agents  in 
this  transaction.  It  is  common  to  speak  of  it  as  a 
thing  done  by  the  apostles.  But  nothing  could  be 
farther  from  the  truth,  as  stated  in  the  record. 
Peter  himself,  is  the  only  apostle  mentioned :  the 
others  might  have  been  present,  and  perhaps 
were;  but  there  is  no  allusion  made  to  them  by 
the  historian,  and  therefore  no  proof  that  they 
concurred  in  the  election,  either  actively,  or  by  an 
expression  of  their  assent.  Supposing,  however, 
that  they  did  co-operate,  it  is  in  vain  to  say,  that 
they  were  the  persons  who  chose  Matthias,  or  who 
appointed  the  "  two'^''  from  whom  the  choice  was 
made.  The  narration  states,  that  "  Peter  rose  up 
in  the  midst  of  the  disciples,"  and  that  "  the  num- 
ber of  the  names  together  were  about  an  hundred 
and  twenty" — that  ''they  appointed  two,  Joseph 
called  Barsabas,"  &c. — that  ''  they  prayed," 
&c. — and  that    ''  they    gave    forth  their   lots." 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  97 

The  thing  therefore  was  not  done  by  the  apostles ; 
but  by  a  promiscuous  assemblage  of  disciples  suf- 
ficient to  outnumber  them  ten  times,  and  of 
course  to  control  the  result.  And  does  it  seem 
consistent  to  suppose,  that  such  a  congregation 
had  the  right,  by  divine  authority,  of  controling 
the  appointment  of  an  apostle  of  Christ  ? 

3.  The  MANNER  in  ivhich  the  tiling  ivas  done. 
The  propriety  of  the  measure  was  suggested  by 
Peter,  not  as  the  result  of  any  special  revelation, 
but  as  an  inference^  drawn  by  him  from  a  passage 
in  the  book  of  Psalms,  considered  it  its  applica- 
tion to  the  case  of  Judas  ; — "  It  is  written,"  he 
says,  ''  in  the  book  of  Psahns,  Let  his  habitation 
be  desolate,  and  let  no  man  dwell  therein  ;  and 
his  bishoprick  let  another  take."  "  This  scrip- 
ture," he  alleges,  "must  needs  have  been  fulfill- 
ed"; and  his  proposition  was,  to  proceed  to  its 
fulfillment  at  once.  Now  the  question  is, — was 
Peter,  at  this  time,  an  inspired  man  ;  and  was  his 
conclusion  therefore  infallible,  that  this  was  the 
proper  occasion,  and  that  the  one  hundred  and 
twenty  disciples  present  were  the  proper  persons, 
to  carry  out  the  prediction  in  the  Psalms,  by  fill- 
ing the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  death  of  Ju- 
das ?  "  The  Spirit ^''^  let  it  be  remembered,  ''was 
not  yet  given.^^  Nothing  had  yet  occurred,  to 
render  Peter  a  different  man  from  what  he  was, 
9 


98  DISCOURSES    ON 

when  he  committed  the  mistakes,  which  are  re- 
corded of  him  as  occurring  on  former  occasions. 
But  a  day  or  two  previous  to  this,  he  had  united 
with  the  other  apostles  in  asking  the  Saviour, 
"  Lord,  wilt  thou,  at  this  time,  restore  again  the 
kingdom  to  Israel"?  Their  notions  and  hopes 
respecting  a  temporal  kingdom  were  still  unre- 
moved.  The  promised  influence,  which  was  to 
rectify  their  views,  and  guide  them  ''into  all 
truth,"  had  not  yet  come.  And,  under  these  cir- 
cumstances, where  is  there  any  proof  of  a  divine 
sanction  upon  the  results  of  Peter's  reasoning  in 
respect  to  the  appointment  of  an  apostle  ? 

Besides,  are  there  not  evident  signs  of  human 
contrivance,  rather  than  of  divine  direction,  in  the 
indirect  and  circuitous  manner  in  which  the  result 
was  arrived  at  ?  There  was  no  concentration  of 
opinion  in  the  minds  of  the  assembly  in  regard  to 
any  particular  individual.  Peter  directed  their 
attention  in  general  to  the  class  of  persons,  who 
might  be  regarded  as  eligible  to  the  office.  They 
then  agreed  upon  "two,"  between  whom,  in 
their  opinion,  the  choice  might  properly  lie.  But, 
unprepared  in  their  own  minds  to  designate  ei- 
ther, they  finally  referred  the  selection  to  the 
Lord  himself,  by  prayer  and  the  casting  of  lots. 
The  difference  between  this,  and  any  other  re- 
corded appointment  to   office  in  the   church   of 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  99 

Christ,  is  so  icide,  that  we  find  it  difficult  to  re- 
gard it  as  occurring  under  the  superintendence 
and  direction  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

4.  The  absence  of  any  reference  to  Matthias 
AFTER  this — we  never  hear  of  him  again.  Not 
that  we  regard  this  fact  as  conclusive  of  itself ; 
because  there  are  others  of  whom  little  or  noth- 
ing is  said.  Still,  it  is  Avorthy  of  notice,  as  falling 
in  with  the  circumstances  already  mentioned. 
The  course  of  subsequent  events  was  just  what 
might  have  been  expected,  upon  the  supposition 
that  the  place  of  Judas  was  still  vacant.  In  a 
short  time,  the  Spirit  was  poured  out  according 
to  the  promise.  Thus  endowed,  the  Apostles 
entered  upon  their  work.  And  when  the  time 
came  for  going  beyond  Judea,  and  occupying  the 
territory  of  the  Gentiles,  Saul  of  Tarsus  was  con- 
verted— was  called  to  the  apostleship  by  Jesus 
Christ  himself — and  was  regarded,  from  that  time, 
as  a  member  of  the  original  apostolical  family. 

These  are  the  aspects  of  the  case  of  Matthias, 
which  present  themselves  on  the  face  of  the  re- 
cord ;  and  which  seem  to  us  to  point  significantly 
to  the  conclusion,  that  his  election  was  unauthor- 
ized and  invalid. — Nor  does  the  objection  appear 
to  us  to  be  of  any  weight,  that  this  view  of  the 
subject  has  a  tendency  to  impair  our  confidence 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  sacred  history.     The  ob- 


100  DISCOURSES  ON 

ject  of  history  is  to  record  events  as  they  occur- 
red. The  record  itself  is  true  to  the  facts  in  the 
case  ;  and  this  is  all  that  we  have  a  right  to  ex- 
pect. Examples  might  be  easily  produced  to 
show,  that  things  are  recorded  in  scripture,  even 
of  good  men,  which  were  not  as  they  should  be, 
and  which  are  permitted  to  pass  without  any  ex- 
pression of  censure.  Silence,  under  such  circum- 
stances, cannot  be  construed  into  a  sign  of  appro- 
bation. We  must  judge  of  X\iQ  propriety  of  the 
things  recorded,  in  the  light  of  general  principles, 
and  by  comparing  scripture  with  scripture. 

We  have  dwelt  upon  this  case,  thus  long,  not 
because  it  is  essential  to  the  integrity  of  our  gene- 
ral argument ;  but  because  we  think  the  facts  in 
regard  to  it  are  not  commonly  estimated  as  they 
should  be.  We  could  afford  to  admit,  that  Mat- 
thias loas  an  apostle,  and  that  the  original  number 
''  twelve'''  was  extended  to  a  thirteenth  in  the  per- 
son of  Paul,  and  still  have  points  enough  remain- 
ing, in  respect  to  which  there  can  be  no  identity 
between  the  apostolical  office  and  that  of  prelati- 
cal  bishops.  The  difference  is  as  wide,  as  be- 
tween any  other  things  which  are  opposite  in 
their  nature,  in  all  the  other  enumerated  particu- 
lars. Modern  bishops  are  neither  called  directly 
by  Christ,  as  the  apostles  were — nor  instructed 
immediately  by  him — nor  endowed  with  the  pow- 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  101 

er  of  loorking  miracles — nor  clothed  with  wfalli- 
bility  as  pubhc  teachers — nor  appointed  to  be  eye- 
ivitnesses  of  our  Lorcfs  resurrection — and  there- 
fore, whatever  else  may,  or  may  not  be  true  in 
regard  to  them,  they  cannot  be  their  successors  in 
office. 

I  take  leave  of  this  topic,  by  adverting  to  the 
opinions  of  some  of  the  most  eminent  advocates  of 
episcopacy,  as  coinciding  with  the  doctrine  we 
have  maintained  in  the  progress  of  this  discussion 
— that  the  prelatical  office  is  not  to  be  found  in 
that  of  the  apostles — for  the  reason,  that  the  apos- 
tles have  not,  and  cannot  have,  any  successors. 
Dr.  Barrow  speaks  in  the  following  explicit  and 
decided  language, — "  The  apostolical  office,  as 
such,  was  personal  and  temporary  ;  and  therefore, 
according  to  its  nature  and  design,  not  successive, 
or  communicable  to  others  in  perpetual  descen- 
dence  from  them.  It  was,  as  such,  in  all  respects 
extraordinary^  conferred  in  a  special  manner,  de- 
signed for  special  purposes,  discharged  by  special 
aids,  endowed  with  special  privileges,  as  was 
needful  for  the  propagation  of  Christianity  and  the 
founding  of  churches.  To  that  office,  it  was  re- 
quisite that  the  person  should  have  an  immediate 
designation  and  cojnmission  from  GodJ^ — ''  It  was 
requisite,  that  an  apostle  should  be  able  to  attest 
concerning  our  Lord's  resurrection''^ — ''  It  was 
9* 


102  DISCOURSES    ON 

needful,  also,  that  an  apostle  should  be  endowed 
with  miraculous  gifts  and  graces.^'' — "  In  fine,  the 
apostleship  was,  as  St.  Chrysostom  telleth  us,  a 
business  fraught  with  ten  thousand  good  things; 
both  greater  than  all  privileges  of  grace,  and  com- 
prehensive  of  them. ^^ — "  Now  such  an  office,  con- 
sisting of  so  many  extraordinary  privileges  and 
miraculous  powers,  which  were  requisite  for  the 
foundation  of  the  church,  and  the  diffusion  of 
Christianity,  against  the  manifold  difficulties  and 
disadvantages  which  it  then  needs  must  encoun- 
ter, was  not  designed  to  continue  by  derivation  ;  for 
it  containeth  in  it  divers  things,  which  apparently 
were  not  communicated,  and  which  no  man  with- 
out GROSS  IMPOSTURE  AND  HYPOCRISY  COULD  CHAL- 
LENGE TO  HIMSELF."*  To  tliis  may  be  added  the 
testimony  of  Dodwell,  whose  learning  as  well  as 
zeal  in  the  support  of  prelacy,  has  not  been  sur- 
passed. He  says, — "  The  office  of  the  apostles 
perished  ivith  the  apostles  ;  in  which  office,  there 
never  ivas  any  succession  to  any  of  them,  except 
to  Judas  the  traitor. ^^  And  so  clear  is  this  to 
the  mind  even  of  Bellarmine,  the  great  champion 
of  the  Papacy,  that  he  asserts  without  qualifica- 
tion, that  "  bishops  have  no  part  of  the  true  aposto- 
lical author  iiy.^^-f 

Thus  far,   then,   the  attempt  to  find  a   divine 

*  Works  vol.  vi.  p.  129,  &c.    f  Quoted  by  Powell,  p.  49. 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  103 

warrant  for  prelacy,  in  the  apostolical  office^  fails 
entirely.  * 

There  is  one  important  point,  however,  con- 
nected with  this  part  of  the  subject,  which  re- 
mains to  be  examined.  The  advocates  of  the 
succession  contend,  that  the  apostolical  office  was 
exclusively  the  ordaining  office — that,  while  the 
apostles  lived,  they  alone  set  apart  other  persons 
to  the  ministry — and  that,  in  the  exercise  of  this 
prerogative,  the  superior  order  of  the  episcopacy 
may  be^  and  are  their  successors.  This  claim 
will  occupy  our  attention  in  the  progress  of  the 
next  discourse ;  in  which,  our  endeavor  will  be 
to  show,  that  the  succession  scheme  clothes  the 
matter  of  ordination  with  a  degree  of  importance 
which  is  not  assigned  to  it  in  scripture — that  such 
as  it  is,  however,  this  rite  ivas  performed  by  other 
persons  than  the  apostles,  even  while  the  apostles 
lived — and,  of  course,  that  no  aid  can  be  derived 
from  this  source,  in  support  of  the  high  preten- 
sions Avhich  this  scheme  is  intended  to  establish. 


DISCOURSE  IV. 


THE  NATURE  OF  ORDINATION— THE  POWER  OF  ORDINA- 
TION NOT  PECULIAR  TO  THE  APOSTOLICAL  OFFICE— 
PRELATICAL  BISHOPS  NOT  THEIR  ONLY  SUCCESSORS  IN 
THE  EXERCISE  OF  THIS  FUNCTION. 


I.  Timothy,  ii.   7.    Whereunto  I  am  ordaiued  a  preacher,  and  au 
apostle. 

I  OFFER  this  passage  to  your  notice,  at  the  pre- 
sent time,  not  because  I  propose  to  dwell  upon  it 
exclusively,  but  only  because  it  is  one  of  several 
passages  in  the  New  Testament  which  refer  to 
the  subject  of  ordination — a  subject  which  we 
are  necessarily  called  upon  to  examine  at  this 
stage  of  our  remarks  on  the  general  doctrine  of 
apostolical  succession. 

This  doctrine,  as  we  have  already  had  occasion 
to  define  it,  is,  that,  in  an  unbroken  line  from  the 
apostles  downward  there  has  been  a  personal  suc- 
cession of  bishops  or  chief  pastors — that  they  suc- 
ceed the  apostles,  as  belonging  to  the  highest  of 


106  DISCOURSES  ON 

three  grades  of  which  the  christian  ministry  is 
supposed  to  consist — that  they  alone  are  clothed 
with  the  power  of  governing  the  churches  by  a 
general  supervision,  and  especially  of  ordaining 
others  to  the  ministerial  work — and  that  their  or- 
der, together  with  the  inferior  ones,  is  perpetuated 
by  one  ordaining  another  in  continuity  from  age 
to  age. 

In  this  scheme,  it  will  be  seen  at  once,  that  eve- 
ry thing  depends  upon  the  question, — Whether, 
by  the  appointment  of  Christ  and  the  authority  of 
scripture,  there  is  any  such  superior  grade  in  the 
ministry  at  all,  as  that  to  which  prelatical  bishops 
belong  ?  If  there  is  not,  the  controversy  is  ended 
— the  chain  of  succession  is  not  only  defective  in 
itself,  but  without  a  hook  at  the  superior  end  on 
which  it  can  hang — and  the  stupendous  fabric  of 
the  hierarchy  vanishes  into  thin  air,  like  a  creature 
of  the  imagination,  when  brought  to  the  tests  of 
reality  and  truth. 

Our  object,  in  the  last  two  discourses,  has  there- 
fore been  to  test  the  grounds  on  which  the  scrip- 
tural warrant  for  prelacy  is  supposed  to  rest- 
And  thus  far  we  have  failed  to  find  any  traces  of 
the  bishop  of  this  order,  either  by  lumie  or  by  of- 
flee.  The  name  we  have  disposed  of  finally ;  but 
various  things,  in  regard  to  the  office,  are  yet  to  be 
considered.     To  show  that  the  apostolical  office 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  10*7 

does  not  represent  the  office  of  a  prelatical  bish- 
op, we  have  brought  the  distinctive  features  of 
that  office  before  you ;  and  have  seen  that,  in 
the  language  of  Dr.  Barrow,  "it  containeth  in  it 
divers  things,  which  apparently  were  not  commu- 
nicated, and  which  no  man  without  gross  impos- 
ture and  hypocrisy  could  challenge  to  himself." 
But,  other  considerations  apart,  it  is  stoutly 
maintained  by  the  advocates  of  prelacy,  that  the 
Apostles  alone  ordained — that  this  was  the  main 
characteristic  of  their  office — and  that  in  respect 
to  this  prerogative  the  possibility  of  succession 
must  be  granted,  while  the  fact  of  such  succes- 
sion as  applied  to  prelatical  bishops  can  be  estab- 
lished by  satisfactory  evidence. 

This,  then,  is  the  point  at  Avhich  we  take  up 
the  thread  of  the  argument  on  the  present  occa- 
sion. And,  it  will  help  not  a  little  to  clear  our 
way,  if  we  advert  in  the  outset  to  the  real  na- 
ture and  design  of  this  rite  of  ordination,  of 
which  so  much  is  made  by  the  advocates  and  sup- 
porters of  this  scheme. 

In  the  Romish  system,  ordination  is  exalted  to 
the  grade  of  a  sacrament.  And  we  cannot  see 
that  it  occupies  a  much  lower  place,  in  the  high- 
toned  prelatical  system  we  are  now  considering. 
One  would  really  think,  from  the  language  in 
which   the  advocates   of  this  system  speak,   that 


108  DISCOURSES  ON 

there  is  something  in  the  nature  of  this  ceremony 
which  is  awfully  mysterious,  and  even  inscruta- 
ble ;  something  which  lies  beyond  the  ken  of  or- 
dinary mortals ;  and  in  regard  to  which,  it  is  bet- 
ter '  to  believe  than  to  reason.'  They  refer  to  it, 
as  if  its  invariable  and  sure  effect  were  to  imprint 
upon  the  subject  of  it  a  new  and  indelible  charac- 
ter— introducing  him  into  a  new  relation,  both  to 
God  and  his  fellow  men — putting  him  in  posses- 
sion of  something  which,  though  invisible,  intan- 
gible, and  incomprehensible,  is  yet  real,  and  of 
wonderful  efficacy — clothing  him  with  the  power 
of  giving  practical  effect  to  the  ordinances  which 
he  administers — and  doing  all  this  with  certainty, 
without  regard  either  to  his  moral  character,  or 
his  mental  endowments.  In  virtue  of  the  '  apos- 
tolical grace'  or  the  '  grace  of  the  episcopal  or- 
der,' Avhich  he  thus  receives,  the  sprinkhng  of 
water  by  his  hands,  in  baptism,  ensures  regenera- 
Hon — the  bread  and  wine  of  the  eucharist  are 
made  to  convey  the  real  body  and  blood  of  the 
Saviour  to  those  who  receive  them — and  the  door 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  opened  to  the  peni- 
tent and  believing  who  receive  these  sacraments 
at  his  hands,  while  none  who  renounce  his  autho- 
rity can  enter,  unless  in  some  way  which  the  scrip- 
tures do  not  reveal.  If  this  is  not  going  the  ivhole 
distance  to  Rome,  it  is  certainly  performing  more 
than  half  the  journey  ! 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  109 

To  convince  you,  that  I  have  not  misstated  the 
high-church  doctrine  in  regard  to  ordination,  es- 
pecially as  conferring  these  wonderful  powers  on 
men  Avithout  any  regard  to  their  persojial  charac- 
ter and  qualifieations,  I  ask  your  attention  to  the 
following  expressions  of  opinion,  which  are  from 
competent  sources.  "  Theumuorthiness  of  man,''^ 
say  the  Tract  Avriters,  "  cannot  prevent  the  good- 
ness of  God  from  flowing  in  those  channels  in 
which  he  has  destined  it  to  flow ;  and  the  chris- 
tian congregations  of  the  present  day,  who  sit  at 
the  feet  of  ministers  duly  ordained^  have  the  same 
reason  for  reverencing  in  them  the  successors  of 
the  apostles,  as  the  primitive  churches  of  Ephesus 
and  of  Crete  had  for  honoring  in  Timothy  and  in 
Titus  the  apostolic  authority  of  him  who  had  ap- 
pointed them."  No.  5,  p.  10,  11. — Rev.  Henry 
Melville,  one  of  the  most  celebrated  living  preach- 
ers, goes  still  farther,  and  is  more  explicit.  Speak- 
ing of  Christ  as  the  Chief  Minister  of  his  church 
on  earth,  he  proceeds  to  say, — "  He  has  provided 
by  keeping  up  a  Succession  of  men,  who  derive 
authority  in  unbroken  series  from  the  first  teach- 
ers of  the  faith,  for  the  continued  preaching  of  his 
word,  and  administration  of  his  sacraments."  * 
*  "You  have  no  right,  when  you  sit  down  in  the 
sanctuary,  to  regard  the  individual  who  addresses 
you,  as  a  mere  public  speaker,  delivering  an  ha- 
10 


110  DISCOURSES     ON 

rangue,  which  has  precisely  so  much  worth,  as  it 
may  draw  from  its  logic   and  its  language.      He 
is  an  ambassador  from  the   Great   Head  of  the 
church,  and  derives  an  authority  from  this  Head, 
which  is  quite  independent  of  his  own  worthiness. 
If  Christ  remain  always  the  minister  of  his  church, 
Christ  is  to  be  looked  at  through  his  ministering 
servant,    ivhoever    shall  visibly    officiate.       And 
though  there  be  a  great  deal  preached^  in  ivhich 
you  cannot  recognize  the  voice  of  the  Savioiw^  and 
though  the  sacraments  be  administered  by  hands 
which  seem  impure  enough  to  sidly  their  sanctity  ; 
yet  shall  we  venture   to  assert,  that  no  man,  who 
keeps  Christ  steadfastly  in  view,  as  the  '  minister 
of  the  true  tabernacle,'   will   ever  fail  to   derive 
profit  from  a  sermon,  or  strength  from  a  commun- 
ion." *  #     "  The  ort^amec?  preacher  is  a  messen- 
ger, a  messenger  from  the  God  of  the  whole  earth. 
His  mental  capacity  may  be  weak — that  is  nothing. 
His  speech  may  be  contemptible — that  is  nothing. 
His   knowledge  may  be    circumscribed — we  say 
not,  that   is  nothing,  but  we  say  that,   whatever 
the  man^s  qucdifications^  he  should  rest  upon  his 
office.^''     *     *      ''  Whoever  preaches,   a  congre- 
gation would  be  benefitted,  if  they  sat  down  in 
the  temper  of  Cornelius,"   &c.     #     *     #     <«  If 
wheresoever  the  minister  is  himself  deficient  and 
untaught,  so  that  his  sermons  exhibit  a  ivrong  sys» 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  Ill 

tern  of  doctrine^  you  will  not  allow  that  Christ's 
church  may  be  profited  by  the  ordinance  of 
preaching,  you  clearly  argue  that  the  Redeemer 
has  given  up  his  office,  and  that  he  can  no  longer 
be  styled  '  the  Minister  of  the  true  tabernacle.' 
There  is  no  middle  course,  between  denying  that 
Christ  is  the  minister,  and  allowing  that  whatever 
may  be  the  faulty  state77ients  of  his  ordained  ser- 
vant^ no  soul,  which  is  hearkening  in  faith  for  a 
word  of  counsel  or  comfort,  shall  find  the  ordi- 
nance worthless,  and  be  sent  empty  away.*'  *  * 
' '  We  behold  the  true  followers  of  Christ  enabled 
to  find  food  in  j)astures  ivhich  seem  barren,  and 
water  where  the  fountains  seem  dry.  They  ob- 
tain, indeed,  the  most  copious  supplies — though, 
perhaps,  even  this  will  not  always  hold  good — 
when  the  sermons  breathe  nothing  but  truth,  and 
the  sacraments  are  administered  by  men  of  tried 
piety  and  faith.  But  when  every  thing-  seems 
against  them,  so  that,  on  a  carnal  calculation,  you 
would  suppose  the  services  of  the  church  stripped 
of  all  efficacy,  then  by  acting  faith  on  the  head  of 
the  ministry,  they  are  instructed  and  nourished, 
though  in  the  main  the  given  lesson  be  falsehood, 
and  the  'proffered  sustenance  Utile  better  than  poi- 
son.* 

This  passage  speaks  for  itself.     It  proceeds  up- 

*  Sermons,  p.  44 — 4S.    Lond.  ed. 


112  DISCOURSES  ON 

on  the  supposition,  that  the  whole  constitution 
and  virtue  of  the  christian  ministry  resides  in  the 
act  of  ordination.  Knowledge  is  nothing  !  Mo- 
ral character  is  nothing !  Personal  piety  is  noth- 
ing I  Sound  doctrine  is  nothing  !  The  mysteri- 
ous gift,  conferred  in  ordination,  is  every  thing ! 
In  the  performance  of  this  ceremony,  the  hands 
of  the  officiating  prelate,  to  use  the  language  of 
another,  ''  become  a  sort  of  Leyden  jar  of  spirit- 
ual electricity,"  communicating  the  divine  virtue 
by  personal  and  physical  contact.  But  how  ut- 
terly ridiculous  do  such  views  appear,  when 
brought  soberly  to  the  tests  of  reason,  and  scrip- 
ture ?  If  there  is  a  new  character,  or  divine  vir- 
ture,  communicated  in  ordination,  luhat  is  it? 
What  are  its  nature,  and  properties  ?  And  where 
is  the  evidence  of  the  fact,  that  it  is  conveyed  in 
the  manner  alleged  ?  No  one  pretends  to  have 
seen  it — the  person  ordained  is  not  conscious  of 
having  received  it — nor  can  others  perceive,  that 
any  alteration  has  occurred,  in  consequence  of  it, 
either  in  his  physical  or  moral  nature.  He  is  the 
same  person,  in  his  external  appearance,  and  in 
all  his  mental  and  moral  endowments,  afterwards, 
that  he  was  before.  He  exhibits  no  increase  in 
the  measure  of  his  wisdom,  of  his  knowledge,  or 
of  his  piety  and  purity  of  life.  If  he  was  igno- 
rant and  graceless,  before  the  ordaining  hands 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  113 

were  laid  upon  him,  he  is  equally  so,  when  they 
are  removed.  "In  a  word,"  this  mysterious  qua- 
lity supposed  to  be  communicated  in  ordination," 
"  appears  to  be  a  non-entity^  inscribed  with  a  very 
formidable  name — a  very  substantial  shadow; 
and  dispute  respecting  it,  appears  about  as  hope- 
ful, as  that  concerning  the  '  indelible  character' 
imparted  in  the  unreiterable  sacraments  of  the 
E-omish  church  ;  of  which  Campbell  archly  says, 
— '  As  to  the  ubi  of  the  character^  there  was  no 
less  variety  of  sentiments — some  placing  it  in  the 
essence  oi  the  soul,  others  i\\  the  under stayiding  ; 
some  in  the  ivill,  and  others  more  plausibly  in  the 
imagination;  others  even  in  the  hands  and 
tongue;  but,  by  the  general  voice,  the  body  was 
excluded.  So  that  the  Avhole  of  what  they  agreed 
in  amounts  to  this,  that,  in  the  unreiterable  sacra- 
ments, as  they  call  them,  something,  they  know 
not  ivhat,  is  imprinted  they  know  not  hoiv,  on 
something  in  the  soul  of  the  recipient,  they  know 
not  ivhere,  which  never  can  be  deleted.'  "* 

As  this  "  grace  of  ordination"  is  neither  cogni- 
zable by  the  senses,  nor  capable  of  being  ascer- 
tained by  consciousness,  it  surely  cannot  be  fair- 
ly demanded  of  us,  that  we  should  believe  in  it, 
unless  it  is  clearly  set  forth  in  the  Bible  as  an  ob- 
ject of  faith.     When  we  turn  to  this  quarter  for 

*  Ed.  Rev.,  April,  1843.  p.  270  Am.  ed. 
10* 


114  DISCOURSES  ON 

information,  however,  we  find  the  matter  of  ordi- 
nation to  be  one  of  the  simplest  and  plainest  of 
all  imaginable  things.  In  the  teachmg  of  the 
sacred  writers,  it  is  referred  to  but  seldom ;  and 
when  it  is  brought  into  view,  there  is  nothing  said, 
in  the  way  of  direct  instruction,  as  to  its  nature 
and  importance — nothing,  as  to  its  imprinting  a 
new  character,  or  imparting  to  the  subject  of  it 
any  thing  which  he  did  not  before  possess — noth- 
ing, which  even  prescribes  any  particular  fonn  of 
it  as  indispensable.  In  short,  there  is  no  proof  to 
be  found  in  their  statements  that  ordination  is  any 
thing  more  than  a  ceremony  of  inauguration,  or 
induction  to  office — performed  upon  the  ground, 
that  the  subject  of  it  is  supposed  to  be  already/ 
qualified  for  the  performance  of  its  duties.  In 
the  few  cases  in  which  it  is  noticed,  there  are  no 
less  than  five  different  words  employed  to  express 
it ;  and  these  are  words  which  are  generally  ren- 
dered by  the  English  verbs  to  make,  to  place,  to 
be  made,  to  choose,  to  constitute  or  appoint.  See 
Mark  iii.  14.  John  xv.  16.  Acts  i.  22.  Acts 
xiv.  23.  Titus  i.  5.  They  all  indicate  the  gene- 
ral idea  oi  appointiyig  to,  or  placing  in  office,  and 
nothing  more.  This  is  their  popular  meaning; 
and  their  indiscriminate  use  affords  sufficient 
proof,  that  nothing  more  Avas  intended  to  be  de- 
scribed than  occurs  in  any  case,  when  an  individ- 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  115 

ual  is  appointed^  inaugurated^  set  up^  or  placed  \\\ 
office. 

I  know,  therefore,  of  no  better  way  of  exhibit- 
ing the  true  nature  of  this  ceremony,  than  by  ad- 
verting to  what  occurs  in  any  case  of  investiture 
with  civil  office.  Let  it  be  the  case  of  the  Chief 
Magistrate  of  our  own  country.  The  constitution 
provides  for  his  inauguration,  or  induction,  in  a 
pubhc  and  formal  way.  He  takes  the  oath  of  of- 
fice, as  administered  by  the  Chief  Justice  ;  and, 
from  that  time,  he  is  regarded  as  in  the  chair  of 
state,  and  invested  with  all  the  powers  which  ap- 
pertain to  this  elevated  and  responsible  station. 
Now,  in  this  case,  what  is  the  nature  and  effect 
of  the  ceremony,  through  which  the  individual 
passes  ?  Does  it  alter  the  personal  character  of 
the  man  ?  Has  it  any  tendency  to  qualify  him, 
either  in  body  or  mind,  for  the  duties  he  is  called 
to  perform  ?  Instead  of  this,  he  is  supposed  to 
have  the  necessary  qualifications  before  his  inaugu- 
ration. Upon  the  supposed  ground  of  his  possess- 
ing them,  he  has  been  nominated  and  elected  by 
the  people  ;  and  the  ceremony  in  question  is  no- 
thing more,  than  a  visible  and  formal  introduction 
to  the  office,  to  which,  by  the  constitutional  pro- 
visions, his  way  is  already  prepared. 

If  ordination  to  the  ministry  means  any  thing 
more  than  this,  we  profess  ourselves  unable,  ei- 


116  DISCOURSES  ON 

ther  to  understand  it,  or  to  find  any  authority  on 
which  it  can  rest.  It  is  a  public  and  formal  de- 
claration, on  the  part  of  those  Avho  perform  it, 
that  the  subject  is  qualified  for  the  office,  and 
ought  to  be  so  regarded  and  received  by  the 
churches.  Instead  of  imprinting  a  new  character, 
or  imparting  new  powers,  it  proceeds  upon  the 
assumption,  that  the  appropriate  character,  and 
the  necessary  powers,  are  already  present.  And 
the  only  important  respect,  in  Avhich  it  differs,  in 
its  nature,  from  a  case  of  civil  investiture,  is,  that 
it  is  a  religious  observance — it  not  only  has  respect 
to  an  office,  established  for  religious  purposes, 
but  is  accompanied  with  prayer  to  God  for  his 
blessing  upon  the  person,  who  is  set  apart  to  its 
responsibilities  and  duties.  With  this  view,  the 
tenor  of  the  New  Testament  fully  agrees.  When 
ordination  is  referred  to  there,  it  is  only  incideU' 
tally ^  as  a  matter  of  history — no  explanations  are 
given  as  to  its  nature — no  commands  are  issued 
enjoining  its  observance — no  stress  is  laid  upon 
it,  as  communicating  any  thing  essential.  But, 
while  there  is  no  effort  towards  challenging  the 
special  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  mere  act  of 
ordination^  there  are  other  things^  in  regard  to 
which  the  instructions  are  full,  explicit,  and  earn- 
est to  the  last  degree.  Sufficient  care  is  taken  to 
inform  us,  what  a  minister  of  Christ  must  be;  and 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSIOX.  117 

yet,  among  all  the  enumerated  particulars,  there 
is  not  one,  which  can  be  supposed  to  be  commu- 
nicated in  ordination.  He  must  be  ''  blameless," 
*'  of  good  behaviour,"  ''  apt  to  teach,"  ''  gii^en  to 
hospitality,"  not  '^  covetous,"  nor  ''  greedy  of  fil- 
thy lucre,"  not  "  given  to  wine,"  neither  ''  a 
brawler,"  nor  "  a  striker,"  but  '' gentle  unto  all 
men,"  ''  in  meekness  instructing  those  that  op- 
pose themselves,"  &c.  &c.  These  are  things,  in 
regard  to  which  there  is  no  room  left  for  misap- 
prehension and  mistake.  They  are  not  referred 
to  incidentally,  but  are  put  forth  in  the  way  of  di- 
rect instruction.  They  are  repeated,  enlarged 
upon,  inculcated  by  '  line  upon  line  and  precept 
upon  precept.'  And  is  it  not  marvellous,  if  there 
is  something  communicated  in  ordination,  more 
vital  to  the  ministerial  office  than  all  these,  that 
no  allusion  to  it  should  be  found  in  the  writings  of 
the  very  persons  by  whom  these  instructions  were 
delivered  ?  Surely,  if  there  is  any  conclusion  to 
be  drawn  from  their  teaching  on  this  subject,  it 
is,  that  our  hope,  in  reference  to  a  succession  of 
true  ministers,  must  rest,  not  on  any  thing  com- 
municated in  ordination,  but  on  the  moral  and  re- 
ligious character,  together  with  the  mental  endow- 
ments, of  those  who,  by  means  of  this  ceremony, 
are  introduced  to  the  work. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  thought  by  some,  that,  if 


118  DISCOURSES  ON 

these  views  are  correct,  there  is  710  need  of  ordina- 
tion— that  the  effect  of  our  doctrine  is  to  turn  it  in- 
to an  empty,  idle,  and  unmeaning  formahty — and 
that,  to  be  consistent,  we  must  take  the  ground, 
that  it  is  not  essential  to  a  true  and  valid  ministry 
at  all.  To  this  we  reply,  that,  while  it  is  not  the 
thing  which  makes  the  ministry,  or  confers  the 
ministerial  character  and  qualifications,  it  is 
nevertheless  an  observance  of  great  importance 
in  the  raising  up  and  regulation  of  the  ministry. 
It  is  eminently  proper,  for  the  sake  of  good  order, 
and  for  defending  the  churches  against  incompe- 
tent and  unworthy  teachers,  that  those  who  are  in 
the  oflice  should  judge  of  the  qualifications  of 
those  who  have  it  in  vieiv — that  they  should  su- 
perintend their  training  and  preparation — and,  at 
the  proper  time,  set  them  apart,  and  commend 
them  to  the  public  regard  and  favor,  in  the  way 
which  is  sanctioned  by  scriptural  example.  This 
is  so  clearly  reasonable  in  itself,  and  so  manifestly 
in  accordance  with  scriptural  usage,  that,  under 
ordinary  circumstances,  no  one  ought  to  be  receiv- 
ed as  a  minister  of  Christ,  whose  mission  is  not 
authenticated  in  this  way. — If  we  are  required  to 
go  farther  than  this,  and  to  answer  the  question 
categorically,  whether  there  can  be  a  true  minis- 
try, under  any  supposable  circumstances,  without 
ordination  ?      we    are  still    unable  to  perceive. 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  119 

that  any  formidable  difficulty  presents  itself  in  our 
way.  We  reply,  without  hesitation,  in  the  affir- 
mative. To  be  in  possession  of  all  that  belongs 
to  the  ministerial  character,  in  the  sight  of  God, 
is  one  thing — the  certification  of  this  fact  to  men, 
so  far  as  it  can  be  done  by  those  Avho  are  already 
in  the  office,  is  another  thing.  The  certification 
does  not  confer  the  character^  and  yet,  where  a 
ministry  exists,  it  ought  not  to  be  dispensed  with 
— the  person  Avho  should  ivish  to  have  it  dispens- 
ed with,  in  his  own  case,  would  furnish  probable 
evidence,  in  this  circumstance  alone,  of  a  state  of 
mind  in  connection  with  which  the  proper  charac- 
ter could  not  be  supposed  to  exist.  But,  if  a  case 
were  to  occur  in  which  no  existing  faithful  minis- 
try could  be  found,  it  would  not  be  necessary,  for 
this  reason,  that  the  ministry  should  be  forever  ex- 
tinct. Faithful  preachers  of  the  Gospel  might 
still  be  raised  up,  by  the  word  and  spirit  of  God, 
v/ho,  without  any  imposition  of  hands  on  the  part 
of  men,  might  be  honored  and  accepted,  in  the 
work  of  turning  many  unto  righteousness.  Men 
/lave  preached  acceptably,  without  ordination,  and 
they  may  do  it  again.  Stephen  and  Phillip  Avere 
among  the  number,  in  apostolic  times — so  were 
the  "  men  of  Cyprus  and  Cyrene,"  who  were  the 
means  of  turning  "  a  great  number"  to  the  Lord, 
in  Antioch — and  so  were  multitudes  of  others  in 


120  DISCOURSES  ON 

the  primitive  church :  it  is  said  of  the  christians 
generally,  who  were  dispersed  from  Jerusalem, 
that  they  "  went  every  where  preaching  the 
ivorcl.^''  The  truth  is,  that  ecclesiastical  power  is 
lodged,  by  the  Head  of  the  church,  not  with  the 
ministry^  but  with  the  people — the  body  of  the 
FAITHFUL,  in  their  associated  state.  And,  if  times 
and  circumstances  come,  in  which  there  is  either 
no  ministry  at  all,  or  the  existing  ministry  become 
universally  corrupt,  they  are  perfectly  competent 
to  retire  upon  their  original  rights,  and  to  see  that 
a  ministry,  of  appropriate  character  and  gifts,  is 
raised  up  among  themselves.  A  State,  in  a  simi- 
lar position,  would  not  allow  the  doctrine  of  per- 
sonal succession  to  interfere  with  the  choice  of 
persons  to  administer  its  affairs ;  and  there  is 
no  reason  why  the  Chwch  should  be  cramped,  by 
a  less  convenient  and  liberal  rule. 

It  may  occur  to  you,  perhaps,  that  I  have 
dwelt  longer  on  this  part  of  the  subject  than  was 
needful;  and  I  can  justify  myself,  in  consuming 
so  much  of  your  time  on  so  plain  a  case,  only  by 
the  fact,  that  the  point  in  question  is  a  vital  one,  in 
that  scheme  of  succession  which  we  are  opposing. 
The  doctrine  is,  that  acts  of  ordination,  perform- 
ed in  succession,  are  the  true  and  only  links  of 
the  chain,  along  which  the  ministerial  character 
descends — that  the  imposition  of  hands,  by  a  bish- 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  121 

op,  is  what  makes  a  man  a  minister  of  Christ,  and 
that  nothing  else  does — and  that  this  effect  fol- 
lows, with  equal  certainty,  whether  the  subject 
be  a  true  servant  of  Christ  hke  Paul,  or  a  servant 
of  the  Devil  like  Judas.  So  that,  the  moment 
we  deprive  ordination  of  the  mysterious  power 
which  is  thus  ascribed  to  it,  and  convert  it  into 
the  plain  thing  which  all  men  understand  a  cere- 
mony of  inauguration  to  be,  we  have  inflicted  a 
wound  upon  the  succession  scheme  which  it  can- 
not survive — we  have  taken  away  the  corner- 
stone of  its  foundation — and,  having  nothing  to 
support  it,  the  superstructure  must  fall  to  the 
ground. 

Having  thus  adverted  to  the  nature  of  ordina- 
tion, we  proceed,  in  the  line  of  our  argument,  to 
say,  that  there  is  no  evidence  ivhatever  that  the  au- 
thority to  ordain  ivas  coinmitted  exclusively  to 
THE  Apostles,  or  to  any  set  0/ chief  pastors,  be- 
longing to  a  higher  grade  than  that  of  presbyters, 
or  parochial  pastors.  If  there  is  such  evidence, 
in  the  teaching  or  history  of  the  New  Testament, 
it  will  not  be  difficult  to  find  it.  The  point  which 
it  would  go  to  establish  is  an  important  one  ;  and 
we  may  expect  to  see  it  presented  too  prominent- 
ly and  plainly  to  admit  of  any  mistake.  And  yet, 
we  may  read  the  sacred  record  from  beginning  to 
end,  with  never  so  much  attention  and  care,  and 
11 


122  DISCOURSES  ON 

be  compelled  to  confess,  Avhen  we  have  done, 
that  we  have  not  found  a  line,  or  sentence,  which 
even  looks  in  this  direction.  We  may  go  back 
to  the  original  appointment  of  the  Apostles,  as 
the  account  is  written  in  the  Gospel  by  Matthew, 
and  repeated  by  Mark  and  Luke — or  we  may  go 
to  the  instructions  which  they  received  from  the 
lips  of  Christ,  after  his  resurrection,  and  imme- 
diately before  his  ascension  to  heaven — and  we 
shall  not  ifind  the  slightest  evidence,  that  any 
thing  ever  passed  between  their  Divine  Master 
and  them  on  the  subjeet  of  ordination  at  all :  there 
is  an  unbroken  silence  in  regard  to  the  whole 
matter  ! 

I  know  it  will  be  said,  here,  that  the  ordaining 
power  may  be  considered  as  fairly  included  in  the 
terms  of  the  Saviour's  final  commission.  And 
this  presents  us  with  another  specimen  of  the 
shifts  which  are  resorted  to,  in  supporting  the 
cause  of  prelacy.  When,  in  order  to  make  room 
for  a  prelatical  succession,  the  object  is  to  show 
that  the  apostles  coidd  have  successors,  we  are 
told,  in  regard  to  a  variety  of  things  which  are 
expressly  referred,  to  in  scripture — such  as  work- 
ing miracles,  bearing  eye-witness  to  the  resurrec- 
tion, &c. — that  they  were  no  part  of  the  apostoli- 
cal office.  But  now,  when  the  particular  object 
is  to  magnify  the  ordaining  power,  and  to  confine 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  123 

it  to  the  apostles,  we  are  directed  for  the  proof, 
that  it  was  committed  to  them,  and  to  them  alone, 
to  a  declaration,  in  which  there  is  no  reference  to 
it  at  all  I  That  the  apostles  did  ordain  we  grant ; 
but  that  the  right  to  perform  this  ceremony  was 
ever  lodged  with  them,  either  expressly  or  exclu- 
sively^ we  deny.  And  we  call  upon  those  who 
make  the  assertion  to  bring  us  the  evidence. 
There  is  not  a  ivord  on  the  subject,  either  direct 
or  indirect,  in  the  language  of  the  commission  al- 
ready referred  to.  Read  it  again,  and  see — "  Go 
ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things,  Avhatsoever  I  have  commanded  you :  and 
lo,  I  AM  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world."  Observe  the  emphatic  words,  and 
then  say,  whether  a  mind  unwarped  by  prejudice 
could  ever  have  drawn  from  this  passage  any 
thing  like  a  doctrine  or  precept  on  the  subject  of 
ordination.  If  ordination,  by  the  imposition  of 
particular  hands,  is  that  important  thing  which 
prelatists  suppose — if,  in  one  form  of  it  only,  it  is 
that  essential  rite  without  which  a  ministry  cannot 
exist,  and  be  perpetuated — is  it  credible,  that  the 
Head  of  the  church  would  have  left  us  to  ascer- 
tain the  fact  hy  inference,  instead  of  declaring  it 
expressly  ?     To  our  minds,  the  silence  of  the   as- 


124  DISCOURSES  ON 

cending  Saviour  on  this  subject,  is  in  perfect  keep- 
ing with  the  views  of  ordination  we  have  already 
expressed.  His  mind  did  not  dwell  upon  this 
ceremony  as  being,  in  any  of  its  relations,  of  fun- 
damental importance.  Regarding  it  as  a  mere 
form,  he  did  not  think  it  expedient  to  bring  it  into 
view,  in  connection  with  the  greater  things  of 
which  he  had  to  speak.  It  was  one  of  those  mat- 
ters which  might  be  safely  left  to  the  judgment 
and  discretion  of  his  church  in  after  times;  and 
he  therefore  departed  from  the  world,  without  ad- 
verting to  it  at  all.  It  is  a  perfectly  gratuitous 
assumption,  therefore,  that  the  power  of  ordaining 
was  committed  exclusively  to  the  Apostles. 
When  they  performed  this  ceremony,  they  did  it 
— not  as  belonging  to  a  particular  grade  in  the 
ministry — nor  in  consequence  of  any  particular 
injunction  laid  upon  them  in  reference  to  it — but 
on  the  general  ground  of  the  natural  propriety 
and  fitness  of  the  thing  itself,  and  in  conformity 
with  the  usage  which  was  common  in  all  cases  of 
appointment  to  office,  whether  ecclesiastical  or 
civil.  With  ordination,  as  practiced  in  the  Jew- 
ish Synagogue,  they  had  long  been  familiar  :  and 
it  required  no  direct  instruction,  to  suggest  to  their 
minds  the  propriety  of  setting  apart  teachers,  in 
the  christian  church,  in  the  same  w^ay. 

We  have  thus  offered,  what  we  think  should  be 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


i2h 


regarded  as  proving  clearly,  that  the  ordaining 
power  was  not  committed  by  Christ  exclusively 
to  the  Apostles.     And,  as  going  to  strengthen  the 
general  conclusion  at  which  we   are  aiming,  we 
now  say,  farther,  that  this  power  actually  luas  ex- 
ercised by  OTHER  PERSONS  thciii  the  Apostles ;  and 
by  persons,  who  could  not  be  supposed  to  be  of  a 
superior  grade  in  the  ministry  to  presbyters^  ox  pa- 
rochial pastors.     We  can  even  find  a  case,  in  the 
New   Testament  history,  in  which  an  Apostle 
was  set  apart  to  his  work,   by  the  imposition  of 
hands,  under  circumstances  which  render  it  cer- 
tain, that  the   ordainers  Avere  persons   on  whom 
the  apostolic  office  had  not  been  conferred.     You 
will  find  what  I  refer  to,  in  this  remark,  in  Acts 
xiii.  1 — 3.     "  Now  there  were  in  the  church  that 
was  at  Antioch,  certain  prophets  and  teachers ; 
as  Barnabas,  and  Simeon  that  was    called  Niger, 
and  Lucius  of  Cyrene,  and   Manaen,  which  had 
been  brought  up  with   Herod  the   tetrarch,  and 
Saul.     As  they  ministered  to  the  Lord,  and  fast- 
ed, the  Holy  Ghost  said,   Separate   me  Barnabas 
and  Saul,  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have  called 
them.      And  when  they  had  fasted  and  prayed, 
and   laid  their  hands  on  them,  they  sent  them 
away."      How  completely  does  this  reverse  the 
order  of  things,  which  prelatical  arguments  are  in- 
tended to  estabhsh  ?  If  Paul  had  been  the  ordainer, 
11* 


126  DISCOURSES  ON 

and  the  other  persons  mentioned  the  ordain- 
ed, the  transaction  might  have  been  in  keeping. 
But  that  he,  who  was  "  not  a  whit  behind  the  ve- 
ry chiefest  apostles,"  should  have  received  ordi- 
nation at  the  hands  of  persons  who  were  never 
raised  to  the  same  office,  is  certainly  adapted  to 
awaken  suspicion  as  to  the  prevalence  of  prelati- 
cal  views  in  the  apostolical  college  I 

This  case,  as  it  presents  itself  to  the  reflecting 
reader,   is   so    entirely  fatal    to  the  whole  high 
church  system,  that  there  is  no  security  but  in  de- 
nying' that  this  was  an  ordination.     This  is  ac- 
cordingly done.     Paul,   it   is  said,   had  been  a 
preacher  of  the  gospel  before  this ;  and  this  was 
nothing  more  than  the  destination  of  himself  and 
Barnabas   to   a   particular  field  of  labor.      But 
where  shall  we  go  to  find  the  characteristics  of  an 
ordination,  if  they  are  not  to  be  found  in  connec- 
tion with  this  transaction  ?     And  what  use  can 
there  be  in  arguing  with  those,  who  insist  upon 
any  thing   more,  as   essential   to   an   ordination 
scene,  than  is  embraced  in  separation  to  the  work 
of  the  ministry,  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  ac- 
companied by  fasting  and  prayer.     It  may  serve 
a  purpose,  to  say,  that  this  was  not  an  ordination ; 
but,  if  a  thing  is  to  be  known  by  its  properties,  it 
could  not  have  been  any  thing  else.      It  matters 
not,  as  to  this  point,  whether  Paul  had  preached 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  127 

the  gospel  before  this  or  not — that  he  had,  we  do 
not  doubt.  After  receiving  the  Holy  Ghost,  at 
the  time  of  his  conversion,  he  began  at  once  to 
preach  the  faith  he  had  endeavored  to  destroy. 
He  continued  to  do  this,  for  a  while,  among  the 
Hebrews  and  Grecian  Jews.  But,  when  the 
time  came  for  him  to  go  to  the  gentiles,  agreeably 
to  his  original  appointment,  he  was  set  apart  by  a 
human  ordination.  The  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
are  significant — "  Separate  me  Barnabas  and 
Saul  for  the  work  ivhereunto  /have  called  thenC^ 
— clearly  implying,  that  they  had  been  called  be- 
fore  this  ;  and  that  what  was  now  done,  was  their 
visible  and  formal  introduction  to  the  work  to 
which  the  call  related.  As  corroborating  this 
view,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  Paul  is  never 
called  an  apostle,  till  after  this  transaction ;  nor 
was  he  known  before  this,  by  his  neio  name. 
Saul  was  the  name  he  bore,  up  to  this  event ;  but 
immediately  afterwards,  he  is  called  Paul,  Acts 
xiii.  9.  And  we  see  not  how  these  things  are  to 
be  accounted  for,  but  on  the  supposition,  that  he 
was  now  set  apart  to  that  ministerial  and  mission- 
ary work  among  the  gentiles,  to  which  he  was 
called,  at  the  time  of  his  conversion.  Indeed,  the 
correctness  of  this  interpretation  is  not  denied  by 
the  most  eminent  episcopal  writers.  Lightfoot 
says, — ''  The  Lord  did  hereby  set  down  a  plat- 


128  DISCOURSES  ON 

form  of  ordaining  ministers  in  the  church  of  the 
gentiles  to  future  time."  Archbishop  Wake 
says, — "  Thus  Paul,  though  he  was  called  to  be 
an  apostle,  not  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ,  was 
yet  consecrated  to  he  an  apostle,  by  the  ordinary 
form  of  imposition  of  hands,  after  he  had  preach- 
ed in  the  church  for  some  time  before."  And 
the  following  are  the  words  of  Skelton, — "  So  sa- 
cred a  thing  is  the  succession  of  ordination,  that 
the  Holy  Ghost,  who  had  already  enabled  Barna- 
bas and  Saul  to  preach  the  word,  ordered  them 
to  be  separated  for  the  work  Avhereunto  he  had 
called  them,  by  fasting,  prayer,  and  the  imposi- 
tion of  hands." ^ 

It  is  proper  to  say,  farther,  in  relation  to  this 
case,  that  the  attempt  is  sometimes  made  to  es- 
cape its  fatal  bearing  upon  the  exclusive  right  of 
the  apostles  to  ordain,  by  taking  refuge  in  the  sup- 
position, that  Simeon,  Lucius,  and  Manaen,  who 
performed  the  ceremony,  belonged  to  the  apostol- 
ic order.  The  words  "  prophets  and  teachers," 
it  is  said,  indicate  nothing  certain  in  regard  to 
their  rank — they  may  have  been  persons  who  had 
been  consecrated,  by  other  apostles,  to  the  high- 
est ministerial  grade.  But,  in  answer  to  this,  it  is 
sufficient  to  refer  to  the  New  Testament  list  of 
official  names,  and  see  where  the   apostles  are 

#  See  these,  and  many  others,  in  Smythj  p.  176. 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  129 

placed,  in  their  relation  to  others.  "  And  God 
hath  set  some  in  the  chnrch ;  first  apostles,  sec- 
ondarily prophets,  thirdly  teacher s,^^  &c.  1  Cor. 
xii.  28.  Precisely  the  same  order  is  observed  in 
Eph.  iv.  11.  And,  in  view  of  this,  who  can  be- 
lieve, that  the  persons  named  above  wonld  have 
been  called  "prophets,"  and  "teachers,"  if  they 
had  been  "  apostles"?  The  trnth  is,  that  they 
were  ministers  of  the  gospel,  who  were  officiat- 
ing at  the  time  in  Antioch — they  preached  to  the 
people  ;  and,  in  this  capacity,  "were  "  teachers," 
— some,  and  perhaps  all  of  them,  possessed  the 
gift  of  prophecy,  which  was  not  uncommon  in  the 
primitive  church,  and  Avere  therefore  "  prophets." 
And  the  Holy  Ghost,  without  intimating  that  the 
power  of  ordaining  belonged  to  any  particular  or- 
der, directed  them  to  set  apart  two,  one  of  Avhom 
was,  from  that  time,  the  highest  in  the  list  of  apos- 
tolical names. — While  this  record  remains,  it  will 
be  in  vain  to  say,  that  the  ordaining  power  was 
confined  to  the  apostolical  order. 

Nor  is  this  the  only  case,  which  bears  upon  the 
same  point.  The  ordination  of  Timothy,  not- 
withstanding all  the  efforts  which  have  been  made 
to  get  rid  of  so  troublesome  an  example,  must 
stand  forever  as  perfectly  decisive.  "  Neglect 
not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,"  says  Paul,  "  which 
was  given  thee  by  prophecy,   with  the  laying  on 


130  DISCOURSES  ON 

of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery'''^ ;  yes,  my  hearers, 
by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery 
— a  most  annoymg  sound,  m  the  ears  of  those 
who  are  for  confining  the  right  of  ordination  to 
prelatical  bishops !  To  admit  that  the  passage 
means  what  it  says,  would,  of  course,  be  fatal. 
And  hence,  we  are  put  to  the  task  of  defending 
its  obvious  meaning  against  as  many,  and  as  for- 
midable objections,  as  human  ingenuity  can  de- 
vise. How  valid  these  objections  are,  you  shall 
see. 

We  are  told,  as  in  the  case  of  Barnabas  and 
Saul,  that  this  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  pres- 
bytery on  Timothy,  was  no  ordination.  This  is 
one  of  the  grounds  taken  by  Bishop  Onderdonk, 
in  his  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture.  He  pro- 
fesses to  look  at  the  passage  calmly,  and  candidly  ; 
and  is  not  able  to  see,  in  the  description  which  it 
gives,  any  certain  evidence  of  an  ordination  scene. 
What  certain  persons  can  see,  however,  depends 
very  much  upon  what  they  ivish  to  see.  And,  as 
a  curious  illustration  of  the  truth  of  this  remark, 
we  find,  that  the  same  eyes  that  can  detect  no  or- 
dination, here,  can  discern  such  a  transaction 
with  perfect  distinctness,  in  other  places,  where 
common  eyes  would  certainly  fail  to  discover  it. 
They  can  see,  for  instance,  that  the  twelve  apos- 
tles entered,  first,  upon  the  office  of  Deacons — 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  131 

that,  afterwards,  they  were  ordained  as  Priests, 
or  Fresbyters — and  that,  finally,  by  another  ordi- 
nation, they  were  elevated  to  the  still  higher  grade 
of  Bishops^  in  the  prelatical  sense.  The  follow- 
ing is  the  curious  passage,  in  which  this  view  is 
presented — ''We  have  seen,  that  'the  twelve' 
had  at  first  the  right  only  to  preach,  and  baptize ; 
which  made  them  deacons  in  office,  according  to 
St.  Paul's  standard,  though,  like  "  the  seven," 
without  the  name  :  there  being  as  yet  no  occasion, 
they  did  not  act  as  almoners  ;  or  rather,  if  fanci- 
ful, it  is  nothing  worse,  to  allege  that  this  diaco- 
nal  function  ivas  adumbrated  in  their  distributing 
the  provisions,  luhen  Jesus  fed  the  midtitudes. 
After  serving  in  this  lower  ministry,  "the  tAvelve" 
received  the  power  of  the  keys  ;  by  which  promo- 
tion they  attained  the  "  good  degree,"  and  were 
commissioned  to  the  "  good  work"  of  presbyter 
BISHOPS.  All  this  occurred,  before  the  death  of 
our  Lord.  Afterward,  after  his  resurrection,  the 
eleven  were  commissioned  a  third  time  ;  Christ 
"breathed"  on  them,  and  said,  "Receive  the 
Holy  Ghost";  they  thus  obtained  a  further,'  and 
of  course,  a  higher  power  of  the  keys." — "  This 
third  commission  made  the  apostles  more  than 
they  were  before  ;  more  than  presbyter  bishops, 
which  they  became,  on  acquiring  their  first  pow- 
er of  the  keys;  in   other  words,  it  made  them 


132  DISCOURSES  ON 

APOSTLE  BISHOPS,  or  BISHOPS  PROPER."^  It  tlius  ap- 
pears, that  what  is  equivalent  to  two  successive  or- 
dinations can  be  found  in  passages,  on  the  face  of 
which  there  is  no  reference  to  the  subject  at  all, 
while  no  traces  of  such  a  transaction  are  to  be 
seen  in  the  formal  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  a 
presbytery !  But,  seriously,  if  this  was  not  an 
ordination,  where  shall  we  find  one?  and  by 
what  marks  shall  we  know  it,  when  we  do  find 
it?  We  cannot  help  thinking,  that,  if  the  pass- 
age had  read  "  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
AN  APOSTLE,"  iiistcad  of  "  the  hands  of  the  ^re5- 
hytery^''  the  essential  features  of  an  ordination 
ceremony  would  have  been  seen,  distinctly,  by 
those  to  whom  they  are  now  invisible  ! 

Another  attempt  is  made  to  escape  the  legiti- 
mate bearing  of  this  passage,  by  alleging,  that 
the  word  "  presbytery"  means  the  office  to  which 
Timothy  was  ordained,  and  not  the  persons  who 
ordained  him  ;  so  that  the  passage  Avould  read — 
''  with  the  laying  on  of  hands  to  confer  the  pres- 
byterate^''  or  presbytership,  or  the  clerical  office. 
There  are  not  many  writers  of  reputation,  it  is 
true,  Avho  venture  upon  this  ground.  And  we 
ask  those  who  do,  to  point  us  to  any  other  place 
in  the  New  Testament,  in  which  the  word  trans- 
lated "  presbytery"  is  used  to  signify  the  office^  as 

*  Ep.  Examined,  p.  243. 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  138 

distinguished  from  an  assembly  of  the  persons  by 
whom  the  office  is  filled.  If  the  word  had  been 
Ilpsrtsiov,  the  iiitepretation  in  question  might  be 
sustained ;  but  npsc^urepiov  is  uniformly  employed 
to  designate  the  senate^  or  council,  of  the  officers, 
and  not  the  offi,ce  itself.  See  Luke  xxii.  66,  and 
Acts  xxii.  5,  where  it  is  applied  to  the  sanhedrim, 
or  council  of  the  elders. — Besides,  if  Timothy  was 
ordained  to  the  presbyter  ate,  or  the  office  of  pres- 
byter, what  ihen  becomes  of  the  pretension,  that 
he  was  a  prelaticcil  bishop?  This,  be  it  remem- 
bered, is  a  favorite  position  in  the  episcopal 
scheme.  It  is  constantly  and  zealously  maintain- 
ed, that  his  rank  was  that  of  an  apostle,  and  that 
he  was  the  apostolical  bishop  of  Ephesiis.  To 
give  this  up,  would  seem  to  most  of  the  friends  of 
prelacy,  like  surrendering  their  cause.  And  yet 
it  must  be  given  up,  if  Timothy's  ordination  was 
only  to  the  presbyter  ate.  This  would  place  him 
in  the  middle  grade  of  the  hierarchy,  and  thereby 
annihilate  his  claim  to  the  possession  of  prelatical 
power,  either  in  Ephesus,  or  any  where  else. 

Once  more,  it  is  objected,  that,  even  supposing 
this  to  have  been  an  ordination,  and  the  word 
*'  presbytery"  to  refer  to  the  persons  concerned 
in  the  transaction,  it  cannot,  after  all,  be  proved  to 
have  heennp?'esbyterian  ordination — that,  though 
the  hands  o^ presbyters  were  laid  on  Timothy,  still 
12 


134  DISCOURSES  ON 

there  is  good  reason  for  believing  that  he  was  or- 
dained, not  by  a  "  presbytery,"  but  by  a  prelate  I 
One  would  think,  indeed,  that  the  attempt  to  es- 
tablish a  position,  so  directly  contradictory  of  the 
fact  stated  in  the  record,  Avere  rather  adventurous  ; 
but  any  thing,  rather  than  admit  that  presbyters 
have  a  right  to  ordain.  Paul,  in  his  second  epis- 
tle to  Timothy^  chap.  i.  v.  6,  thus  writes, — 
*'  Wherefore  1  put  thee  in  remembrance,  that 
thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God,  which  is  in  thee, 
by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands."  Here,  it  is  said, 
we  find  the  true  source,  and  virtue,  of  Timothy's 
ordination  ;  it  was  in  Paul,  and  not  in  "  the  pres- 
bytery": Paul  was  an  apostle  :  he  belonged  to  the 
superior  grade  in  the  ministry :  and  he  was  the 
one,  who  really  performed  the  ceremony,  and 
gave  it  all  its  vaUdity,  while  the  presbyters  im- 
posed their  hands  merely  as  a  sign  of  concurrence, 
or  approbation.  This  would,  no  doubt,  answer 
very  well;  but  the  difficulty  lies  in  the  proof. 
This  reasoning  takes  for  granted  the  very  thing  to 
be  proved;  and  that  is,  that  the  virtue  of  the  or- 
daining power  resided  exclusively  with  the  apos- 
tles. This  is  what  we  deny ;  and  we  say,  that 
these  passages,  which  refer  to  Timothy,  do  not 
contain  a  tittle  of  evidence  that  Paul  had  any 
more  efficient  concern  in  his  ordination  than  the 
rest.     "  The  gift"  which  he  had  received  is  as- 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  135 

cribed,  just  as  fully,  in  one  case,  to  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery^  as  it  is,  in  the  oth- 
er, to  the  putting  on  of  the  hands  of  the  apostle. 
And  who  has  a  right  to  say,  in  view  of  this  fact, 
that  the  presbytery  Avas  nothing  in  the  transaction, 
and  that  the  apostle  was  every  thing  ?  If  we  sup- 
pose that  the  virtue  of  the  ordaining  act  resided 
in  the  presbytery  as  a  body,  and  that  the  apostle 
refers  to  the  laying  on  of  his  hands  as  one  of  the 
presbytery,  and  especially  as  the  presiding  meni' 
ber,  then  the  two  passages  are  consistent  with 
each  other,  and  the  view  presented  is  in  perfect 
harmony  with  presbyterian  ordinations,  as  they 
always  occur.  But,  if  w^e  suppose  that  the  whole 
virtue  of  the  act  was  with  the  apostle,  and  that  the 
presbytery  only  concurred,  then  we  make  the  re- 
cord affirm,  that  Timothy  received  a  gift,  at  the 
hands  of  the  Presbytery,  which,  in  point  of  fact,  he 
did  not  receive  from  them  at  all,  either  in  whole 
or  in  part,  but  altogether  from  the  hands  of  a  sin- 
gle individual.  It  is  perfectly  gratuitous,  there- 
fore, to  say  that  the  apostle  was  the  ordainer,  in 
any  sense  which  did  not  apply  as  fully  to  all  con- 
cerned ;  and  the  case  remains,  as  furnishing  indu- 
bitable proof,  that  the  ordaining  power  ivas  exer- 
cised, in  the  primitive  church,  by  presbyters,  as 
well  as  by  apostles. 

There  is  a  criticism  sometimes  resorted  to,  for 


136  DISCOURSES    ON 

the  purpose  of  showing  that  Paul's  agency  in  this 
ordination  was  of  a  higher  kind  than  that  of  the 
presbytery,  which  deserves  a  passing  notice.  It 
is  said,  that  the  apostle  himself  makes  a  distinc- 
tion, thus, — "  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands" — 
*'  ivith  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbyte- 
ry." The  word  <5ia  (by,)  it  is  alleged,  signifies 
emphatically  the  cause  of  a  thing;  while  M-sra 
{with)  denotes  concurrence^  or  agreement;  and 
this  difference,  in  the  form  of  expression,  is  sup- 
posed to  imply,  that  Paul  was  the  efficient  ordai- 
ner,  while,  on  the  part  of  the  others,  there  was 
merely  consent. — Any  one  who  desires  to  see  the 
argument,  drawn  from  this  distinction,  reduced  to 
less  than  iiothing-,  may  find  it  disposed  of  to  their 
satisfaction,  in  Dr.  Mason's  Essays  on  Episcopa- 
cy.^ In  testing  the  truth  of  the  assertion,  ''  that 
Sia  always  signifies  emphatically  the  cause  of  a 
thing,"  he  refers  to  the  following  examples — "  It 
is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  [Sia]  the  eye  of 
a  needle,"  &c. — "  Jesus  went  through  ((5<a)  the 
cornfields" — "  And  again  he  entered  into  Caper- 
naum, after  (Sia)  some  days."  And,  in  reference 
to  these  cases,  he  inquires, — ''What  cause  does 
the  preposition  Sia  express  here  ?  Does  it  signify 
emphatically,  the  cause  of  the  needle's  eye  ?  or 
of  the  cornfields  ?  or  of  the  days  ?  or  the  cause  of 

*  Works  vol.  iii.  p.  156^  &c. 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  137 

the  camel's  going  through  the  first  ?  of  our 
Lord's  going  through  the  second  ?  or  of  his  spend- 
ing the  third  before  he  went  into  Capernaum"? 
These  inquiries  point  us,  at  once,  to  the  utter  ab- 
surdity of  this  whole  criticism,  and  therefore  of 
the  argument,  which  is  founded  upon  it. 

The  general  conclusion,  then,  to  which  we  are 
conducted,  in  respect  to  the  ordaining  power,  is, 
that  it  did  not  reside  icitli  the  apostles  exclusively^ 
but  was  exercised,  also,  by  those  who  had  attain- 
ed to  no  higher  grade  than  that  of  presbyter. 
This,  we  believe,  is  the  only  grade  of  ministerial 
character  and  office,  which  is  known  to  the  New 
Testament.  The  apostles,  in  their  character  as 
apostles,  had  no  equals,  and  no  successors — they 
were  special  messengers  of  Christ,  for  the  perform- 
ance of  a  special  Avork — and,  when  their  work 
was  done,  the  necessity  for  their  special  endow- 
ments, and  prerogatives,  passed  away.  But,  in 
respect  to  any  part  of  their  work,  which  was  to 
be  of  permanent  duration — such  as  preaching  the 
gospel,  administering  the  ordinances,  setting  apart 
others  to  the  ministerial  office,  &c. — they  stood 
on  the  same  level  with  all  the  other  elders,  or 
presbyters,  who  labored  in  company  with  them. 

Their  position  is  defined  with  sufficient  clear- 
ness,  by  the  Apostle    Peter,   w^hen  he    says, — 
**  The  elders  which  are  among  you,  I  exhort,  ivJio 
12* 


138  DISCOURSES  ON 

am  also  an  elder."  The  grade  to  which  he  be- 
longed is  thus  designated  by  himself;  and  what 
is  it  ?  Is  it  the  grade  of  a  prelate  ?  Is  it  the 
grade  of  one,  who  is  appointed  to  rule  presbyters, 
as  well  as  to  govern  churches  ?  Or  is  it  the  grade 
of  a  presbyter,  or  parochial  pastor  ?  His  own 
view  of  the  matter  is  clear.  He  was  an  apostle 
of  Christ — he  was  sent,  by  the  great  Lord  and 
Master  of  all,  upon  a  special  mission — he  was 
commissioned  to  do,  in  many  respects,  an  extra- 
ordinary work — and  was  therefore  endowed  with 
many  extraordinary  qualifications.  But,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  standing  work  of  the  ministry,  in 
which  other  elders  were  engaged,  he  was  "  also 
an  elder";  and,  without  any  disarrangement  of 
established  ranks  and  orders,  he  could  come  and 
take  his  place  among  them — this  was  the  class  to 
which  he  belonged — this  was  the  only  office,  in 
reference  to  the  ordinary  ministry  of  Christ,  which 
he  sustained.  The  only  difference  between  him 
and  others,  was,  that  he  was  an  elder  under  the 
guidance  of  inspiration — an  elder  who  could 
speak  and  write  infallibly — and  an  elder  who  was 
chosen  to  be  an  eye-witness  of  the  resurrection  of 
Christ. 

The  names  and  titles,  which  are  given  in  scrip- 
ture to  preachers  of  the  gospel,  are  not  names  of 
different  grades,  but  different  names  which   are 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  139 

applied  to  one  and  the  same  grade ;  and  these 
names  are  descriptive  of  the  different  aspects,  in 
which  this  office  and  work  may  be  viewed.  The 
state  of  the  case  is  well  presented,  in  the  follow- 
ing extract  from  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian church — ^^  The  pastoral  office  is  the  ffi'st,  in 
the  church,  both  for  dignity  and  usefulness.  The 
person  who  fills  this  office,  hath,  in  scripture,  ob- 
tained different  names  expressive  of  his  various 
duties.  As  he  has  the  oversight  of  the  flock,  he 
is  termed  bishop.  As  he  feeds  them  with  spirit- 
ual food,  he  is  termed  pastor.  As  he  serves 
Christ  in  his  church,  he  is  termed  minister.  As 
it  is  his  duty  to  be  grave  and  prudent^  and  an  ex- 
ample of  the  flock,  and  to  govern  well  in  the 
house  and  kingdom  of  God,  he  is  termed  presby- 
ter, or  elder.  As  he  is  the  messenger  of  God, 
he  is  termed  the  angel  of  the  church.  As  he  is 
sent  to  declare  the  ivill  of  God  to  sinners,  and  to 
beseech  them  to  be  reconciled  to  God  through 
Christ,  he  is  termed  ambassador.  And  as  he  dis- 
penses the  manifold  grace  of  God,  and  the  ordi- 
nances instituted  by  Christ,  he  is  termed  steward 
of  the  mysteries  of  God."*  Besides  these,  are 
the  terms  ''  prophets,"  "  teachers,"  "evangelists," 
&c.,  all  of  which  have  their  applications  in  the 
same  way.     And  it  would  be  just  as  reasonable 

*  Form  of  Government,  chap.  iii. 


140  DISCOURSES  ON 

to  say,  that  each  and  every  one  of  these  names  is 
the  name  of  a  distinct  and  separate  grade  in  the 
ministry,  as  to  say  that  there  are  three  grades, 
among  Avhich  the  entire  list  is  to  be  divided. 

We  have  thus  presented,  all  that  we  intended 
to  say,  in  refutation  of  the  claim,  that  prelatical 
bishops  have  succeeded  to  the  apostolical  office. 
"We  have  seen,  that,  in  many  respects,  the  charac- 
teristic nature  of  this  office  was  such  as  to  render 
its  perpetuation  impossible ;  and  that,  in  those 
respects  in  which  the  apostles  could  have  succes- 
sors, they  were  of  no  higher  grade  than  that  of 
elder  or  presbyter.  In  respect  to  their  extraor- 
dinary work,  and  the  endowments  which  qualifi- 
ed them  for  it,  there  are  none  like  them,  and  nev- 
er will  be ;  but,  in  the  office  of  preaching,  baptiz- 
ing, and  all  else  that  is  permanent  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  gospel,  there  is  a  succession,  the 
line  of  which  will  never  run  out  until  "the  myste- 
ry of  God"  in  respect  to  our  world  is  ''  finished." 
Of  the  nature  of  this  succession,  we  shall  have  oc- 
casion to  speak  hereafter.  And,  in  its  reality 
and  true  value,  we  shall  find  it — not  in  necessary 
and  exclusive  connection  with  those,  on  whom 
prelatical  hands  have  been  imposed — not  in  the 
character  and  doings  of  the  arrogant  and  bigotted 
hierarch,  who  appropriates  the  apostolical  char- 
acter to  himself,  and  looks  upon  those  who  reject 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  141 

his  claims  as  beyond  the  ordinary  possibility  of 
salvation — not  in  the  person  of  the  Arch,  or  Lord 
Bishop,  with  his  £50,000  a  year,  his  princely  reti- 
nue, his  vicar  general,  his  domestic  chaplains,  his 
chancellors  and  their  attendants,  his  registers  and 
their  clerks,  his  commissaries,  surrogates,  and 
other  attendants,  amounting  in  all  to  hundreds — 
but  in  the  humble,  self-denying,  and  faithful  la- 
bors of  those  who  can  truly  say, — "We  preach 
not  ourselves,  but  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord ;  and 
ourselves  your  servants  for  Jesus'  sake."  This  is 
the  spirit  of  the  apostolical  office,  so  far  as  it  was 
intended  to  be  permanent ;  and,  where  it  lives, 
the  apostles  live,  in  those  who  succeed  them. 
But  where  there  is  more  of  pride,  of  pomp,  and  of 
external  show,  than  of  active,  prayerful,  and  per- 
severing labors  for  the  salvation  of  men,  there  is 
no  apostolical  succession^  because  there  is  no 
apostolical  character — the  vitality  of  their  office  is 
gone — and  what  remains,  is  of  no  value  in  the  sight 
of  God,  and  should  be  so  regarded  in  the  judg- 
ment of  men. 


DISCOURSE  V. 


=g©'^ 


NO  TRACES  OF  A  PRELATICAL  BISHOP,  IN  THE  JEWISH 
HIGH-PRIESTHOOD— IN  TIMOTHY— IN  TITUS— NOR,  IN  THE 
ANGELS  OF  THE  SEVEN  CHURCHES. 


Phil.  i.  1.  Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  serv^ants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to 
all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus,  which  are  at  Philhppi,  with  the  bishops 
and  deacons. 

It  is  not  so  much  on  account  of  any  thing 
which  this  passage  contains,  as  on  account  of 
what  it  does  not  contain,  that  I  introduce  it  to 
your  notice,  in  connection  with  the  general  sub- 
ject which  we  are  now  discussing.  We  can  easi- 
ly account  for  it,  on  tmprelatical  principles,  that 
the  apostle,  in  addressing  the  church  at  Phillippi, 
should  have  recognized  no  officer  of  a  higher 
grade  than  that  of  "bishops,"  who  are  acknow- 
ledged to  have  been  parochial  pastors ;  because, 
in  our  judgment,  there  was  no  officer  of  a  supe- 
rior rank,  in  the  primitive  church,  whom  he  could 
address.     But,  on  the  supposition  that  the  pastors 


144  DISCOURSES  ON 

and  deacons,  together  with  all  the  church,  were 
under  the  supervision  and  government  of  a  chief 
ruler  in  the  character  and  capacity  of  a  prelate, 
how  is  it  to  be  explained,  that  no  reference  is 
made  to  him,  either  in  the  apostle's  salutation,  or 
in  any  of  the  subsequent  parts  of  the  epistle  ?  Nor 
is  this  a  solitary  case.  The  course  of  the  apostle, 
in  relation  to  this  point,  is  without  any  variation  : 
he  addresses  the  "  saints,"  the  "  deacons,"  and 
the  "  pastoral  bishops";  but  never  whispers  the 
name,  or  makes  any  allusion  to  the  office,  of 
the  prelate.  And  we  now  put  it  to  the  intelligent 
and  candid  inquirer  after  truth,  Avhether  such  an 
omission  could  have  occurred,  if  prelacy  had  been 
in  existence  when  the  Epistles  were  written  ? 
Would  such  a  course,  on  the  part  of  the  apostle, 
have  been  natural  ?  Would  it  have  been  even 
7'especiful,  to  have  sent  his  salutation  to  all  others, 
and  to  have  uttered  no  expression  of  regard  for 
the  chief  pastor,  to  Avhose  care  and  management 
the  interests  of  the  whole  church  were  commit- 
ted ? 

Indirectly,  therefore,  the  text  may  be  consider- 
ed as  reiterating  our  position,  that  "  there  is  no 
such  functionary  known  to  the  New  Testament  at 
all^  as  A  PRELATiCAL  BISHOP."  Wc  have  seen  that 
he  is  not  to  be  found  there  by  name — we  have 
proved,  as  we  think,  that  he  cannot  be  traced,  in 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  145 

any  of  the  features  of  the  apostolical  character  and 
office. — And  we  proceed,  now,  to  show,  that  he 
does  not  appear,  either  in  the  high-priesthood  of 
the  Jewish  economy — in  Tdiothy,  or  Titus — or 
in  THE  ANGELS  q/" //^e  5eye;?  churches.  We  know 
of  no  other  important  points  than  these,  which  re- 
main to  be  examined ;  and  we  shall  advert  to 
them,  briefly,  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  here 
presented. 

The  argument  for  the  prelatical  office,  which  is 
drawn  from  the  high-priesthood  of  the  Jews,  is 
stated  by  those  who  use  it,  in  the  following  man- 
ner; — "  The  Mosaic  dispensation  was  figurative 
of  the  christian" — ''The  priesthood  of  the  law, 
was  typical  of  the  priesthood  of  the  gospel" — 
''  Why,  then,  should  not  the  orders  of  the  priest- 
hood under  the  old  economy,  be  supposed  to 
typify  those  orders  that  were  to  be  established  un- 
der the  new"? — "What  the  high-priests,  the 
priests,  and  the  Levites  were  in  the  temple,  such 
are  the  bishops,  the  presbyters,  and  deacons,  in 
the  church  of  Christ." 

Now,  to  test  the  soundness  of  this  argument, 
let  us  see,  in  the  first  place,  w^hether  the  premises 
are  well  and  securely  laid.  That  "  the  Mosaic 
dispensation  was  figurative  of  the  christian"  we 
grant ;  and  that  "  the  priesthood  of  the  law  was 
typical  of  the  priesthood  of  the  gospel,"  we  do  not 
13 


146  DISCOURSES  ON 

deny,  provided  the  word  ''  priesthood,"  as  applied 
to  the  gospel,  be  understood  in  its  New  Testa- 
ment sense.  But  the  gospel  priesthood,  of  which 
that  of  the  law  was  typical,  was  not  the  christian 
ministry^  but  the  priesthood  of  Christ.  This  is 
undeniably  evident,  from  the  tenor  of  all  scrip- 
ture. There  is  not  a  passage  to  be  found,  con- 
taining the  remotest  allusion  to  the  ministry  of 
Christ  under  the  notion  of  a  priesthood,  while  to 
exhibit  and  illustrate  the  priesthood  of  Christ 
himself,  is  the  main  object  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  Speaking  of  Christ,  Paul  says, — 
^'  This  man  hath  an  unchangeable  priesthood''' — 
^'such  a  high-priest  became  us" — "the  Son  of  God 
abideth  a  priest  continually" — "Christ  being  come, 
a  high-priest  of  good  things  to  come,"  &c. — Nor 
is  it  difficult  to  see  what  it  was,  in  the  character 
and  work  of  Christ,  that  the  Old  Testament 
priesthood  was  intended  to  prefigure.  The  type 
had  reference,  not  to  orders  or  grades  of  office, 
but  to  the  priestly  work — which  was,  to  offer  sa- 
crifice for  sin,  and  to  make  intercession  for  the  peo- 
ple. This  work,  under  the  Jewish  law,  was  di- 
vided. The  offering  of  the  sacrifice  was  perform- 
ed, by  the  lower  priests,  in  the  outer  court — after 
which,  the  high-priest  alone  entered  the  inner 
sanctuary  with  the  sprinkling  of  blood,  and  inter- 
ceeded  for  the  congregation  before  the  mercy 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  147 

seat.  But  Christ,  as  the  antitype,  performs,  in 
his  own  person,  the  entire  work.  "  Once,  in  the 
end  of  the  world,"  says  Paul,  "hath  he  appear- 
ed to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself  ^^; 
and  again — "  Christ  is  not  entered  into  the  holy 
places  made  with  hands,  which  are  the  figures  of 
the  true ;  but  into  heaven  itself,  there  to  appear 
in  the  presence  of  God  for  us."  This  finishes  the 
work  of  Christ  as  a  priest ;  and,  beyond  this, 
there  is  nothing  which  the  legal  priesthood  was 
intended  to  foreshadow.  The  typical  allusion 
has  run  out  in  Him ;  and  we  therefore  hear  no- 
thing more  of  any  thing  priestly  in  any  other  di- 
rection :  neither  the  name,  the  character,  nor  the 
office  are  ever  introduced,  as  applying  to  "  the 
ministry  of  reconciliation." 

But  even  granting,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  the  Old  Testament  priesthood  ivas  typical  of 
the  New  Testament  ministry,  it  is  plain  enough, 
that  the  likeness  between  the  type  and  the  anti- 
type would  fail  at  the  point  ichere  it  is  most  need- 
ed. Between  the  High  Priest  as  the  only  one  of 
his  order ^  and  the  Pope  of  Rome,  who  claims  to 
be  the  only  head  of  the  church  on  earth,  a  like- 
ness might  be  supposed  to  exist ;  but  we  look  in 
vain  for  any  such  resemblance  in  the  order  of  pre- 
latical  bishops.  They  are  not  one  but  many: 
their  number  may  be  extended  indefinitely :  with 


148  DISCOURSES  ON 

a  single  prelate,  their  system  could  not  exist,  and 
be  perpetuated  :  so  that,  instead  of  a  likeness,  we 
here  find  a  perfect  dissimilarity.  The  high- 
priesthood  must  have  but  one  incumbent,  and  the 
bishop's  order  must  have  inore  than  one  ;  and,  if 
so,  how  could  the  former  be  the  type  of  the  lat- 
ter ?  There  is  no  getting  rid  of  the  difficulty, 
which  this  view  of  the  subject  presents.  If  a 
type  and  an  antitype  must  resemble  each  other  at 
all,  then  it  is  not  possible,  that  the  one  high  priest 
of  the  Mosaic  economy  Avas  intended  to  prefigure 
the  hundreds  of  bishops,  who  are  in  office,  at  the 
same  time,  in  the  prelatical  system. 

We  do  not  dwell  upon  this  claim,  however ; 
because  we  perceive  that  the  friends  of  prelacy 
are  becoming  less  disposed  to  urge  it  themselves. 
Great  stress  has  been  laid  upon  it,  heretofore ; 
but,  in  most  of  the  recent  publications  we  have 
seen,  it  is  either  passed  over  entirely,  or  brought 
into  view  as  of  secondary  importance. 

We  pass,  therefore,  to  the  argument  for  prela- 
cy derived  from  the  supposed  character  and  office 
of  Timothy  :  it  is  alleged,  that  he  was  a  prelatical 
bishop — and  that,  as  such,  he  was  stationed  at 
Epliesiis.  We  shall  advert  to  the  grounds  on 
which  this  allegation  is  put,  and  see  whether  they 
are  broad  and  firm  enough  to  support  it. 

Was  Timothy  an  apostle?     It  is  affirmed  that 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  149 

he  is  so  called,  expressly ;  and  that  this  proves, 
that  he  was  of  that  upper  grade  in  the  ministry, 
to  which  modern  bishops  belong.  In  the  refuta- 
tion of  this  claim,  however,  I  need  not  occupy 
your  attention  long,  since  the  main  points  which 
it  embraces  have  been  already  considered.  The 
only  passage  in  which  Timothy  is  supposed  to  be 
called  an  apostle,  is  the  one  in  Thess.  ii.  6 ; 
where  Paul,  in  using  the  phrase  "  the  apostles  of 
Christ,"  is  said  to  refer  to  Timothy,  and  Silas, 
in  connection  Avith  himself.  We  have  shown,  in 
another  place,  that  this  view  is  founded  on  an  er- 
roneous interpretation  of  the  apostle's  language  ; 
and  the  considerations  there  advanced  need  not 
be  repeated.*  We  only  add,  that,  where  Paul 
speaks  of  himself  and  Timothy  together,  and  calls 
himself  an  apostle^  he  is  careful  to  call  Timothy 
by  another  name.  There  are  two  instances  of 
this,  which  are  so  marked,  as  to  forbid  the  suppo- 
sition, that  they  could  have  occurred  otherwise 
than  by  design.  ^'  Paul  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ 
by  the  will  of  God,  and  Timothy  our  brother,''^ 
2  Cor.  i.  1.  Precisely  the  same  form  of  expres- 
sion occurs  in  Col.  i.  1.  And  nothing  could  be 
more  decisive  as  to  the  fact,  that,  in  the  judgment 
of  Paul  himself,  Timothy  was  not  an  apostle,  in 

*  See  pages  92,  93,  to  which  the  reader  is  requested  to  refer. 
13* 


150  DISCOURSES     ON 

the  sense  in  which  this  name  and  office  appertain- 
ed to  himself. 

But,  if  it  were  true,  that  Timothy  was  called  an 
apostle,  would  this  make  him  a  bishop^  in  the  pre- 
latical  sense  ?  To  say  that  it  would,  would  be  to 
beg  the  whole  question  in  dispute.  It  is  yet  to  be 
proved,  that  apostles  and  prelates  are  identical, 
either  in  name,  or  office.  We  deny  that  they 
are,  and  have  assigned  our  reasons.  An  apostle 
is  one  who  is  sent — Timothy  might  have  been 
sent  by  Paul,  as  he  was,  on  more  than  one  impor- 
tant mission,  and  yet  not  have  belonged  to  the 
highest  of  three  ministerial  grades.  The  truth  is, 
the  word  "  apostle"  determines  nothing  whatever, 
as  to  rank  or  order.  On  the  supposition  that 
there  were  three  grades  in  existence,  an  indivi- 
dual might  have  been  an  apostle,  and  yet  have  be- 
longed to  the  lowest  as  well  as  the  highest. 

Again,  however,  we  are  told,  that  Timothy 
must  have  been  a  bishop  in  the  prelatical  sense, 
because  he  is  addressed  by  Paul  in  language 
which  shows  that  the  power  of  ordaining,  and 
governing  the  churches,  was  committed  to  him 
personally  and  singly.  The  specimens  are  such 
as  the  following — "  this  charge  I  commit  unto 
thee^  son  Timothy" — "  these  things  write  I  unto 
thee^  that  thou  mightest  know  how  to  behave  thy- 
self  in  the  house  of  God" — "  that  thou  mightest 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  151 

charge  some  that,  they  teach  no  other  doctrine"^ — 
^'  the  thmgs  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me,  the 
same  commit  thou  to  faithful  men,"  &c.  On 
these  passages  we  remark,  that,  as  the  epistles 
which  contain  them  were  addressed  to  Timothy 
as  an  individual,  it  would  have  been  strange  in- 
deed if  the  apostle  had  not  addressed  him  person- 
ally and  singly;  and  that,  as  to  the  things  them- 
selves which  he  was  empowered  and  directed  to 
do,  they  were  nothing  more  than  might  have 
been  appropriate,  on  a  variety  of  other  supposi- 
tions, as  well  as  on  the  supposition  that  this  office 
w^as  identical  with  that  of  a  modern  prelate.  Oth- 
ers have  as  good  a  right  to  m.ake  suppositions,  to 
suit  the  case,  as  the  friends  of  high  church  episco- 
pacy. We  will  suppose,  then,  that  Timothy  was, 
what  he  is  expressly  declared  to  have  been,  ''  an 
evangelists''^  2  Timothy  iv.  5 — that  he  travelled 
from  place  to  place,  sometimes  as  the  companion 
of  Paul,  and  sometimes  by  himself,  though  act- 
mg  under  the  apostle's  authority  and  direction — 
and  that  the  counsels  and  charges,  which  he  re- 
ceived, were  in  reference  to  this  extraordinary 
work.  Is  there  any  thing  incongruous  in  this 
supposition  ?  Does  it  involve  any  contradiction, 
or  absurdity,  whatever  ? — Again,  we  will  suppose 
that  Timothy  was,  what  a  bishop  is  understood  to 
be,  in  the  Lutheran  church,  or  among  the  Wes- 


152  DISCOURSES  ON 

leyan  Methodists — not  a  prelate,  by  divine  right 
— not  a  distinct  order,  as  essential  to  a  true  mi- 
nistry— but  a  superior,  to  whom  certain  duties  are 
committed,  in  the  way  of  superintendence.  If 
this  had  been  his  position,  would  any  of  Paul's 
instructions  to  him  have  been  out  of  place  ?  And, 
so  far  as  these  instructions  are  concerned,  have 
not  the  Lutheran,  and  the  Wesleyan,  as  fair  a 
claim  to  Timothy  as  the  advocates  of  prelacy  ? — 
And,  once  more,  we  will  suppose,  that  Timothy 
was  nothing  more  than  a  presbyter,  on  the  purest 
principles  of  presbyterian  parity ;  and  that,  as 
such,  he  was  directed  by  Paul  to  ''do  the  work 
of  an  evangelist."  If  this  was  the  state  of  the 
case,  as  we  believe  it  was,  there  is  still  room  for 
all  that  was  said  in  the  apostle's  addresses.  His 
language  is  in  no  respect  different  from  what  we 
should  regard  as  perfectly  appropriate,  in  sending 
an  evangelist  to  any  new  field,  where  churches 
were  to  be  gathered  and  established.  We  should 
address  him  as  an  individual ;  and  we  should  tell 
him  to  ''  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,"  and  to 
"commit"  what  he  himself  had  received  ''to 
faithful  men,  who  should  be  able  to  teach  others 
also."  As  Avell  might  it  be  inferred,  therefore, 
from  the  language  which  we  use  on  such  occa- 
sions, that  we  regard  all  our  missionaries  as  invest- 
ed with  superior  ministerial  power  and  rights,  as 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  153 

that  Timothy  was  so  regarded  by  Paul,  because 
he  addressed  him  in  the  manner  above  referred  to. 

If  there  is  any  virtue,  then,  in  having  Timothy 
as  a  predecessor,  it  may  be  allowed,  as  fairly  to 
others,  as  to  prelatical  bishops. 

Besides,  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  apos- 
tle confers  no  higher  power  upon  Timothy  than 
he  conferred  upon  some  others,  for  whom  the  pre- 
latical character  is  not  claimed.  Take,  as  an  in- 
stance, his  charge  to  the  church  at  Corinth.  His 
language  to  them,  on  the  subject  of  exercising 
discipline,  is  much  stronger  than  the  language  he 
uses  to  Timothy.  He  commands  them,  not  only 
to  ^^  receive  an  accusation,"  in  regard  to  a  certain 
person,  but  to  try  the  case,  and  carry  it  out  even 
to  excommunication — which  is  the  highest  act  of 
discipline  known  in  the  church.  '^  In  the  name 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  he  says,  "  when  ye 
are  gathered  together,  and  my  spirit,  with  the 
power  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  deliver  such  a 
one  unto  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh^^^ 
&c.  Here  the  reins  of  discipline  are  put  into 
the  hands  of  a  plurality — of  certain  persons  "  ga- 
thered together" — and  whether  we  suppose  them 
to  have  been  the  ministers  of  the  church,  or  the 
members  at  large,  it  matters  not :  in  either  case, 
according  to  the  reasoning  from  the  powers  of 
Timothy  they  must  have  been  prelatical  bishops! 


154  DISCOURSES  ON 

But  it  is  still  affirmed,  that  Timothy  was  a  bi- 
shop— not  only  a  missionary,  but  a  diocesan  bishop 
— and  that  Ephesus  was  his  diocese.  We  can 
scarcely  turn  to  a  writer  on  episcopacy,  by  whom 
this  is  not  asserted ;  and  the  assertion  is  general- 
ly unaccompanied  by  any  attempt  to  support  it  by 
proof.  The  truth  of  it  is  supposed  to  be  so  evi- 
dent, that  no  well  informed  person  can  be  expect- 
ed to  deny  it.  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephesus  ! 
This  is  the  declaration ;  and  those  who  will  not 
receive  it  are  regarded,  either  as  ignorant,  or  ob- 
tuse, to  a  hopeless  degree.  Still,  we  cannot 
help  inquiring,  whether,  in  giving  him  this  title, 
there  is  not  some  mistake  ?  We  have  already 
seen  that,  by  the  confession  of  all  modern  prelati- 
cal  writers,  a  bishop,  in  New  Testament  times, 
was  a  presbyter — the  overseer  of  a  particular 
flock,  and  not  the  ruler  of  ministers  and  churches. 
And,  if  this  is  so,  and  Timothy  was  bishop  of 
Ephesus,  what  becomes  of  his  prelatical  charac- 
ter ?  The  reply  to  this  will  probably  be,  '  names 
are  nothing' — '  we  inquire  only  after  things.'^ 
But,  if  Timothy  was  not  known  among  the  Ephe- 
sians  as  their  bishop,  in  what  character,  and  by 
what  name  did  they  know  him  ?  What  was  his 
title  ?  If  it  was  not  '  Timothy,  our  bishop,''  what 
can  we  suppose  it  to  have  been  ?  Was  it  '  Timo- 
thy, our  apostle^2     This  will  hardly  be  contended 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  155 

for  ;  and,  if  not,  must  we  come  to  the  conclusion, 
that  he  was  known  among  them,  as  Bishop  Onder- 
donk  says  all  prelates  are  known  in  scripture  ? — 

"  INDEPENDENTLY  OF  ANY  NAME  AT  ALL"I 

As  to  his  location  in  Ephesus,  there  is  not  the 
slightest  evidence,  that  he  ever  had  a  fixed  resi- 
dence there,  in  any  capacity.  There  is  but  one 
passage  which  speaks  of  him  in  connection  with 
Ephesus  at  all;  and  that,  by  a  fair  interpretation, 
affords  conclusive  proof  of  the  contrary.  It  is  the 
passage,  in  which  Paul  says, — "  I  besought  thee 
to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when  I  went  into  Mace- 
donia." If  this  does  not  imply,  that  Timothy 
was,  in  general,  the  traveling  companion  of  the 
apostle,  and  that  he  was  not  located  permanently 
at  Ephesus,  we  confess  ourselves  unable  to  under- 
stand the  import  of  the  plainest  language.  For 
why  exhort  him  "  to  abide,"  in  the  place  to  which 
he  belonged  ?  Where  should  a  prelate  abide,  but 
in  his  own  diocese  ?  Does  the  bishop  of  New- 
York  need  an  exhortation  to  abide  in  New- York  ? 
A  most  undutiful  son  in  the  faith  Timothy  must 
have  been,  if  it  required  the  beseeching  of  his  spi- 
ritual father,  to  induce  him  to  remain  on  the  very 
field  of  duty  to  which  he  w^as  appointed  ! 

On  this  point  it  is  playfully,  but  forcibly,  said 
by  Jean  Daille — "  Who,  without  the  assistance 
of  an  extraordinary  passion,  could  ever  have  di- 


156  DISCOURSES  ON 

vined  a  thing  so  fine  and  rare;  or  have  ima- 
gined, that  to  beseech  a  man  to  abide  in  a  city, 
implied  the  settling  him  the  bishop  of  it,  arch- 
bishop of  the  province,  and  primate  of  all  the 
country  ?  Without  exaggerating,  the  cause  of 
our  hierarchial  gentlemen  must  needs  run  very 
low,  that  they  should  be  forced  to  have  recourse 
to  such  pitiful  proof.  For  my  part,  viewing 
things  without  passion,  from  the  apostle's  saying 
that  he  besought  Timothy  to  abide  at  Ephesus, 
I  shall  rather  conclude  on  the  contrary,  that  he 
could  7wt  be  the  bishop  of  that  place."  *  * 
''  To  beseech  him  to  stay  in  a  place  where  he 
is  fixed  by  his  charge,  and  Avhich  he  could  not 
quit,  without  offending  God  and  failing  in  his 
duty :  to  speak  the  truth,  that  is  a  request  that 
is  not  very  ohllging ;  for  it  evidently  presuppo- 
ses, that  a  man  does  not  lay  his  duty  much  to 
heart,  when  he  needs  to  be  entreated  to  do 
it."  t 

If  the  powers  which  Timothy  was  to  exercise 
in  Ephesus  are  proof,  that  he  had  a  fixed  resi- 
dence there  as  diocesan  bishop,  why  will  not 
the  same  argument  answer  in  other  cases  ?  Why 
will  it  not  follow,  for  example,  that  Paul  and 
Barnabas  were  the  resident  prelates  of  Lystra, 
of  Iconium  and  of  Antioch  ?      What  was  done 

t  Quoted  by  Powell,  p.  58. 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  157 

by  Timothy,  in  Ephesus,  that  was  not  done  by 
them,  in  these  several  places,  in  which  they  so- 
journed ?  Clearly  nothing,  which  involved  the 
possession  of  any  higher  prerogative  :  so  that  the 
same  principle,  which  locates  Timothy  as  the  dio- 
cesan of  Ephesns,  wonld  make  each  one  of  the 
apostles  sustain  the  same  relation  to  every  place, 
in  which  they  exercised  their  apostolical  func- 
tions. 

But,  if  there  were  nothing  else  against  it,  this 
whole  figment  in  regard  to  Timothy's  diocese, 
would  be  demolished  by  the  fact,  that,  in  Paul's 
valedictory  address  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  he 
makes  no  allusion,  either  to  him, -or  to  any  other 
one,  occupying  the  station  which  he  is  supposed 
to  have  filled.  This  is  an  aspect  of  the  subject,  in 
regard  to  which  there  can  be  no  mistake.  Think, 
for  a  moment,  of  the  marked  and  interesting  cir- 
cumstances under  which  this  address  was  deliver- 
ed. Between  the  apostle  and  the  Ephesian  church, 
there  existed  a  bond  of  mutual  attachment,  which 
was  strong  and  tender.  Its  ministerial  officers 
were  now  before  him ;  and  the  circumstances 
were  such  as  to  indicate,  with  sufficient  certainty, 
both  to  him  and  to  them,  that  they  were  never  to 
meet  again.  Surely,  he  will  now  give  them  a 
word  of  counsel,  applicable  to  all  the  relations 
they  sustain.  As  an  appropriate  designation  of 
14 


158  DISCOURSES  ON 

their  office  and  character,  he  calls  them  "bish- 
ops"— he  speaks  of  ''the  flock,"  over  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  had  appointed  them  overseers — he 
charges  them,  to  take  heed  to  themselves,  and  to 
all  the  flock,  and  "  to  feed  the  church  of  God" 
— but  he  utters  not  a  word,  from  which  it  can  be 
inferred,  that  they  either  were,  or  expected  to  be, 
under  the  direction  and  control  of  any  ecclesiasti- 
cal superior.  Now  if  Timothy,  his  own  son  in 
the  faith,  was  their  diocesan,  how  is  this  to  be  ac- 
counted for  ?  Is  it  credible,  that  such  a  charge 
was  given,  under  such  circumstances,  containing 
no  allusion  to  him  ?  To  say  that  Timothy  was 
absent.)  at  the  time,  would  not  alter  the  case  :  it 
would  still  be  unaccountable,  that  the  whole  care 
and  management  of  the  church  should  be  com- 
mitted to  the  presbyters,  without  any  thing  to  sig- 
nify that  the  resident  prelate  was  to  have  any 
concern  in  the  matter. — Nor  would  it  neutralize 
the  objection,  to  say,  that  this  interview  between 
Paul  and  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  occurred  before 
Timothy  became  their  diocesan.  If  this  was  the 
fact,  then  Ephesus  was  without  a  prelate,  at  the 
time  referred  to — the  organization  of  the  church, 
there,  was  still  defective — the  most  important  offi- 
cer of  all  was  still  wanting.  And  who  can  be- 
lieve that,  in  this  state  of  the  case,  Paul  would 
have  given  them  his  final  charge,  without  advert- 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  159 

ing  to  the  necessity  of  their  having  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal superior — without  promising  to  appoint  one, 
or  directing  them  to  choose  one  from  among 
themselves — without  even  intimating  that  the 
presence  of  such  a  superior  was  desirable,  or  that 
his  office  had  any  place,  by  divine  authority,  in 
the  proper  constitution  of  the  church  ?  We  feel 
compelled  to  unite  with  Daille,  in  saying,  that 
^'  the  cause  of  our  hierarchial  gentlemen  must 
needs  run  very  low,"  when  it  becomes  necessary 
to  maintain,  under  these  circumstances,  that  Tim- 
othy was  bishop  of  Ephesus,  in  the  modern  pre- 
latical  sense. 

And  if  Timothy  was  not,  in  this  sense,  the  bish- 
op of  Ephesus,  are  there  any  better  or  more  co- 
gent reasons  for  believing,  that  Titus  was  bishop 
of  Crete  ?  This  is  the  next  ground,  on  which  a 
stand  is  attempted  to  be  taken  in  defence  of  pre- 
lacy. And,  as  if  to  make  it  sufficiently  broad,  w^e 
are  told  of  "  the  large  island  of  Crete" — an  island 
of  *'  one  hundred  cities'^ — all  committed  to  one 
man,  to  <'  set  in  order,"  and  "ordain  elders  in 
every  city"!  Surely  he  must  have  been  a  prelati- 
cal  bishop  !  One  would  think,  that  this  field  was 
large  enough  for  an  archbishop.  What  bishop  of 
modern  times  has  ever  had  such  a  diocese  ?  Man- 
ifestly, the  argument  drawn  from  the  extent  of 
the  territory  and  population  proves  too  much. 


160  DISCOURSES  ON 

But  who  says  that  Titus  was  bishop  of  Crete, 
in  the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  here  to  be  un- 
derstood, or  in  any  other  sense  ?  Is  there  any 
passage  in  the  New  Testament,  which  declares 
that  this  was  the  fact  ?  This  is  not  claimed,  by 
those  who  make  the  assertion  ;  but,  as  usual,  w^e 
are  told,  that  there  are  certain  things  from  which 
it  may  be  inferred.  And  the  passage  Avhich  is  reli- 
ed upon,  mainly,  is  that  in  which  Paul  says  to  him 
— "  For  this  cause,  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou 
shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  want- 
ing, and  ordain  elders  in  every  city,  as  I  had  ap- 
pointed thee."  Titus  i.  5.  This  is  taken  in  con- 
nection with  another,  in  which  he  is  directed  to 
admonish  heretics,  and  to  reject  them,  if  they  do 
not  renounce  their  errors.  Chap.  iii.  10.  From 
all  this  it  is  supposed  to  be  evident,  that  the  pow- 
ers of  ordination,  and  of  discipline,  were  commit- 
ted to  his  single  hands — and  that  Crete  was  ap- 
pointed to  him,  as  the  diocese,  within  which,  these 
powers  were  to  be  exercised. 

In  regard  to  the  first  of  these  allegations,  it  is 
the  same  that  we  have  already  refuted,  in  the 
case  of  Timothy.  As  Paul  was  writing  to  Titus, 
as  an  individual,  it  would  have  been  strange  if  he 
had  not  addressed  him  personally  and  singly. 
And,  as  to  the  substance  of  the  charge  which  he 
gives  him,  it  is  nothing  more  than  would  be  ap- 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION. 


16X 


propriate  on  presbyterian  principles,  in  designat- 
ing an  individual  to  any  particular  field,  where 
churches  were  to  be  organized,  and  brought  into 
a  settled  and  permanent  state.  The  truth  is,  that 
Titus  was  left,  for  a  while,  in  Crete,  as  Timothy 
was  besought  to  abide  in  Ephesus,  to  execute, 
under  the  direction  of  the  apostle,  what  he  could 
not  stay  to  finish  himself;  and  that,  in  this  itine- 
rant and  extraordinary  capacity,  he  was  expected 
to  exercise  a  general  supervision  over  all  that  was 
needful  to  be  done,  in  carrying  out  the  plans 
which  the  apostle  had  laid.  If  his  instructions 
prove  that  he  was  a  prelate,  or  that  no  one  but 
himself  was  to  ordain  and  exercise  discipline  in 
Crete,  they  prove,  with  equal  conclusiveness,  that 
no  one  but  himself  was  to  preach  within  this  field. 
Pursuing  the  same  personal  style  of  address,  the 
apostle  says — "speak  thou  the  things  that  become 
sound  doctrine."  If  the  word  ''  thou,"  when 
applied  to  ordaining  and  exercising  discipline, 
means  that  he  alone  was  to  do  these  things,  of 
course  the  same  word,  when  applied  to  preach- 
ing, must  mean  that  he  alone  was  to  preach. 
But,  granting  that  he  did  ordain  alone — which 
never  can  be  shown — would  this  prove  that  he 
belonged  to  an  upper  grade  in  the  ministry,  as 
compared  with  others  ?  All  that  could  be  deriv- 
ed legitimately  from  this  would  be,  that  one  min- 
14* 


162  DISCOURSES  ON 

ister  of  the  gospel,  especially  when  acting  under 
the  direction  of  an  inspired  apostle,  might  proper- 
ly set  apart  another  of  the  same  grade,  to  the  per- 
formance of  the  same  work — which  few  of  the  re- 
formed churches  would  be  disposed  to  deny. 

As  to  the  circumstance  of  Paul's  leaving  Titus 
in  Crete,  going  to  prove  that  Crete  was  his  dio- 
cese, we  marvel  just  as  much,  that  this  should  ever 
have  been  dignified  with  the  name  of  an  argu- 
ment, as  that  the  beseeching  of  Timothy  to  abide 
in  Ephesus  should  have  been  considered  as  prov- 
ing that  he  was  the  prelate  of  that  city,  and  its 
suburban  dependencies.  As  in  one  case,  so  in 
the  other,  we  may  ask, — Where  should  a  prelati- 
cal  bishop  be  left,  but  in  his  own  diocese  ?  And 
does  not  the  fact,  that  he  was  left  in  a  particular 
place,  sufficiently  prove  that  it  was  not  the  place 
of  his  fixed  and  permanent  residence  ?  Titus, 
like  Timothy,  was  an  itinerant — he  was  Paul's 
companion  in  labor,  and  travel — and,  having  been 
with  him  in  Crete,  he  was  "  left"  there,  to  set  in 
order  the  things  that  were  still  wanting,  and 
which  the  apostle  himself  could  not  wait  to  ad- 
just. It  is  plain  too,  from  a  subsequent  statement, 
that,  in  leaving  him  behind,  he  had  produced  a 
separation  between  himself  and  his  faithful  coad- 
jutor, which  he  was  anxious  should  come  to  an 
end  as  soon  as  possible  ;  for  he  says,  chap.  iii.  10, 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  163 

*'  When  I  shall  send  Artemas  nnto  thee,  or  Ty- 
chicus,  be  diligent  to  come  unto  me  to  Nicopolis : 
for  I  have  determined  there  to  winter."  It  is 
evident  from  this,  that,  when  the  epistle  was  writ- 
ten, he  was  already  agitating  the  pm'pose  of  re- 
lieving Titus  from  the  temporary  duties  which  he 
had  assigned  to  him  in  Crete — that  he  had  partly 
fixed,  in  his  own  mind,  upon  the  person  who  was 
to  take  his  place — and  that,  as  soon  as  the  ar- 
rangement could  be  completed,  he  expected  him 
to  leave  Crete,  and  become  his  companion  again, 
as  he  had  been  aforetime. — A  plainer  case  than 
this,  we  think  it  Avould  be  difficult  to  present. 
And  we  are,  therefore,  wholly  unable  to  find  the 
likeness  of  a  prelate  in  Titus,  any  more  than  in 
Timothy. 

But  there  is  yet  another  resource  :  we  are  told, 
that  the  order  of  modern  bishops  is  to  be  found 
in  THE  ANGELS  of  tlw  sevBii  cliurclies  of  Asia. 
"  Each  of  those  churches,"  it  is  said,  "  is  address- 
ed, not  through  its  clergy  at  large,  but  through  its 
'  angel,'  or  chief  officer" — ''  Unto  the  angel  of  the 
church  of  Ephesus  write" — ''  And  to  the  angel  of 
the  church  in  Pergamos  write,"  &c.  "  This  in- 
dividual, called  '  the  angel,'  "  it  is  farther  said, 
"  is,  in  each  case,  identified  with  his  church,  and 
his  church  with  him" — "  he  is  made  responsible, 
individually,    for    the   errors    of   the  respective 


164  DISCOURSES  ON 

churches,  and  is  commended  individually  for 
their  respective  merits" — and  the  question  is  ask- 
ed, as  if  the  answer  must  of  necessity  be  on  the 
side  of  prelacy — "Who  then  was  'the  angel'? 
What  was  his  office"?  Bishop  Onderdonk,  after 
repeating  what  is  said  concerning  him,  and  inter- 
preting the  language  to  suit  himself,  exclaims — 
"  Surely  a  diocesan  is  here"? 

We  do  not  wonder  that  he  should  think  so ; 
but  the  question  is,  whether  the  mind  of  an  indi- 
vidued  must  not  be  pre- occupied  with  prelatical 
notions,  in  order  to  make  the  discovery  ?  Is  there 
any  thing  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  angel," 
which  renders  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  the 
person  referred  to  was  a  prelatical  bishop  ?  Must 
it  be  so  interpreted  ?  Is  there  nothing  else  to 
which  it  might  refer  ?  And,  if  there  is,  must  we 
not  know,  from  other  and  independent  sources, 
that  there  w^ere  prelates  in  the  primitive  church, 
before  it  will  be  fair  to  conclude,  that  they  were 
the  persons  to  whom  these  epistles  were  address- 
ed ?  According  to  our  humble  notions  of  minis- 
terial rank  and  order,  it  is  quite  as  likely,  and 
much  more  so,  that  these  "angels"  were  paro- 
chial  pastors^  than  that  they  were  diocesan  bishops. 
And  what  forbids  the  supposition,  that  this  inter- 
pretation may  be  correct  ? 

In  taking  up  the  record,  as  it  is,  we  find  that 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  165 

*'  the  angel,"  whoever  he  may  be,  is  associated 
with  a  single  church — "  Unto  the  angel  of  the 
church^^^  &c — not  the  churches.  And,  in  view 
of  this  fact,  we  ask  which  supposition  is  the  most 
plausible — the  one  which  makes  him  a  parochial 
pastor,  or  that  which  supposes  him  to  have  been 
a  prelatical  bishop  ?  How  could  he  have  been 
a  prelate,  if  his  relations  extended  only  to  a  single 
church  ?  I  know  it  will  be  said,  in  reply  to  this, 
that  the  phrase  "  the  church"  is  to  be  understood, 
as  it  occurs  in  each  of  these  cases,  in  a  collective 
sense,  as  signifying  more  congregations  than  one 
— that  in  each  of  the  cities  mentioned,  Avith  their 
suburbs,  there  were  many  churches — and  that 
taken  together  they  were  called,  as  a  whole,  ''the 
church."  But,  it  must  be  remembered,  that  this 
is  a  thing  to  be  proved — the  record  does  not  say 
so — we  deny  entirely  that  such  was  the  fact — it 
is  a  mere  figment  to  suit  the  emergency. 

The  only  proof,  attempted  to  be  drawn  from 
scripture,  is  in  the  case  of  Ephesus.  There,  it  is 
said,  there  were  several  presbyters,  when  Paul 
bade  them  farewell  at  Miletus,  which  was  many 
years  before  the  book  of  Revelation  was  written  ; 
and  that,  where  there  were  several  presbyters,  it 
is  fair  to  conclude  there  were  several  congrega- 
tions. But  the  truth  is,  no  conclusion  could  be 
more  unfair.     It  is  no  uncommon  thing,   now, 


166  DISCOURSES  ON 

and  it  was  much  less  so  then,  to  find  a  plurality 
of  preaching  presbyters  in  connection  with  a  sin- 
gle church.  Besides,  if  our  system  be  scriptural, 
as  we  believe  it  is,  there  were  ruling  presbyters  in 
connection  with  every  church,  who  did  not 
preach ;  so  that  the  plurality  of  presbyters  in 
Ephesus  can  be  easily  accounted  for,  without 
supposing  a  plurality  of  churches. 

Erroneous  notions,  in  regard  to  the  extent  of 
these  ancient  churches,  lies  at  the  foundation  of 
much  of  the  false  reasoning  which  occurs  in  the 
support  of  prelacy.  And  for  the  purpose  of  set- 
ting this  matter  before  you  in  its  true  light,  I  ask 
your  attention,  in  this  place,  to  the  testimony  of 
one,  who  was  qualified  to  judge,  and  who  will 
not  be  suspected  of  a  disposition  to  crowd  episco- 
pacy out  of  its  proper  place.  I  refer  to  Sir  Peter 
King — nephew  of  the  celebrated  Mr.  Locke,  and 
Lord  High  Chancellor  of  England.  As  the  re- 
sult of  his  careful  inquiry  into  the  constitution, 
&c.,  of  the  church  for  the  first  three  hundred 
years,  he  confesses  that  there  was,  then,  "but  one 
bishop  to  a  church,''  and  "but  one  church  to  a 
bishop" — and  that  "  the  bishop's  cure  was  never 
called  a  diocese,  but  usually  a  parish,  no  larger 
than  our  parishes."  In  regard  to  Ephesus,  in 
particular,  he  says — "  As  for  the  diocese  of  Ephe- 
sus, there  was  but  one  altar,  or  communion  table, 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  167 

in  its  whole  territory,  at  which  they  all  communi- 
cated together ;  whence  they  are  said  to  break 
the  one  bread." — "  The  members  of  this  church 
could  also  meet  together  in  one  place,  to  send  up 
their  joint  prayers  to  God  in  Christ:  and  there- 
fore Ignatius  condemns  all  those  of  that  diocese, 
who  did  not  assemble  together  in  that  one  place, 
with  the  rest  of  the  members  thereof,  to  send  up 
their  prayers  to  God." — "  So  that,  if  to  communi- 
cate together,  and  to  pray  together,  be  the  marks 
of  a  particular  church,  then  this  bishopric  "was 
one."  He  takes  the  same  gi'ound  in  regard  to 
the  churches  at  Smyrna,  at  Philadelphia,  &c,; 
and  his  opinion  is  corroborated  by  other  eminent- 
ly respectable  authorities,  which  we  might  ad- 
duce. 

We  contend,  therefore,  that  these  Asiatic 
churches  were  just  what  the  record  specifies — 
they  were  single  churches,  of  no  great  or  unusual 
extent — and  those  who  insist  upon  understanding 
the  record  differently,  are  bound  to  sustain  their 
interpretation  by  satisfactory  reasons.  If  we 
must  have  prelatical  bishops,  let  us  see,  first,  that 
we  have  room  for  them  :  there  is  not  space  enough 
in  any  ofSce,  or  sphere  of  duty,  connected  with 
an  individual  church  :  and,  if  this  sphere  is  to  be 
enlarged  to  suit  the  necessity  of  the  case,  let  US' 
see  that  it  can  be  done  consistently  with  facts. 


168  DISCOURSES    ON 

On  our  principles,  there  is  no  difficulty.  The  an- 
gels in  question  were  not  diocesan,  but  scriptural 
bishops — they  were  the  overseers  of  single  church- 
es— they  were  the  pastors  of  the  flock  of  God, 
whose  business  it  was  to  feed  them  with  the  bread 
of  life  in  the  word  and  ordinances  of  the  gospel. 

In  addition  to  this,  I  might  refer  you  to  other 
senses  of  the  word  "  angel,"  Avhich  would  be 
quite  as  plausible  as  that  which  makes  it  ap- 
ply to  a  prelatical  bishop ;  but  I  shall  only  de- 
tain you,  further,  by  giving  a  specimen  of  the 
loose  and  contradictory  statements,  into  which 
the  advocates  of  prelacy  are  betrayed,  in  hunting 
after  this  order  where  it  cannot  be  found. 

I  have  before    me   an  argument,  by    Bishop 
M'lUvaine,  in  which  he  contends  for  the  prelatical 
character  of  the  angels  of  the  seven  churches,  up 
on  the  express  ground,  that  to  them  "  was  appro 
priated,  during  their  life-time,  the  title  oi bishops 
as  a  distinctive  title  of  their  special  office."     This 
he  says,  "is  not  disputed";  and  he  quotes  Igna 
tins  as  evidence.     "  Ignatius,  bishop  of  Antioch 
who  personally  knew  and    conversed  with   St 
John,  writing  to  the  church  of  Ephesus  not  more 
than  twelve  years  after   St.  John  had  addressed 
the  angel  of  that  church,  in  the  book  of  Revela- 
tion^, expressly  says  that  Onesimus  was  then  its 
bishop — '  Who  (he  says)  according  to  the  flesh  is 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  169 

your  bishop,''  "  It  may  be  fairly  presumed,  that, 
when  the  author  penned  this  sentence,  he  was  not 
aware  of  the  manner  in  which  it  may  be  turned 
against  himself:  he  has,  unwittingly,  surrendered 
the  very  point  in  debate.  The  true  argument  in 
the  case  runs  thus: — Ignatius  was  an  acquaint- 
ance and  personal  friend  of  the  Apostle  John  : 
during  the  time  of  John  and  the  other  apostles,  as 
is  confessed  on  all  hands,  the  name  "  bishop^''  was 
the  title,  not  of  a  prelate,  but  of  a  parochial  pas- 
tor :  the  angels  of  the  seven  churches  were  then 
called  "  bishops,"  as  "  the  distinctive  title  of  their 
special  office":  therefore  the  angels  of  the  seven 
churches  were  not  prelates^  but  parochial  pastors  I 
If  there  is  any  defect  in  this  logic,  vv^e  should  like 
to  know  where  it  lies. 

Now  turn,  for  a  moment,  to  a  position  taken 
by  Bishop  Onderdonk,  on  the  same  subject. 
When  pressed  by  one  of  his  opponents  to  say, 
why  the  "  angels"  were  not  called  "  either  apos- 
tles or  bishops"? — on  the  supposition,  that  these 
were  the  appropriate  names  of  the  superior  order 
— he  answers  in  the  following  language — ''  These 
*  angels' were  addressed  just  at  the  time,  when, 
as  we  learn  from  other  sources,  the.  name  of  apos- 
tle was  about  being  relinquished  td/  those  indivi- 
duals so  called  in  scripture,  and  the  name  bishop 
was  IN  TRANSITU  froiTi  the  second  order  to  the 
15 


170  DISCOURSES  ON 

first ;  the  former  title  was  losing,  or  begining  to 
lose,  its  more  general  application ;  and  the  lat- 
ter had  not  yet  acquired  its  final  appropriation." 
- — "  The  dignitaries  in  question  were  addressed, 
when  it  was  somewhat  too  late  to  call  them  apos- 
tles, and  too  soon  to  call  them  bishops"!  This, 
we  think,  is  a  choice  specimen  of  its  kind;  and, 
when  taken  in  connection  with  the  argument  of 
Bishop  M'lUvaine,  it  shows  upon  what  dark,  un- 
certain, and  inconsistent  ground  these  gentlemen 
are  compelled  to  stand.  One  stakes  the  cause  of 
prelacy  upon  the  fact,  that  the  "angels"  were 
called  ''  bishops^^ — the  other  is  at  no  loss  to  assign 
a  sufficient  reason  Avhy  they  were  not  called 
bishops — and,  in  this  state  of  antagonism,  what 
safety  can  there  be  in  following  the  footsteps  of 
either  ?  The  position  of  the  former  destroys  his 
own  cause ;  and  that  of  the  latter,  while  it  is  a 
mere  fancy,  borders  too  closely  upon  the  ridicu- 
lous, to  be  entitled  to  a  serious  refutation. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  last  scriptural  ar- 
gument for  the  divine  right  of  prelacy,  I  invite 
your  attention,  in  conclusion  of  this  part  of  the 
subject,  to  the  three  following  considerations. 

1.  If  prelacy  existed  in  the  church,  as  founded 
by  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles,  hoiu  does  it  hap- 
pen  that  we  never  meet  ivith  a  second,  or  a  third 
ORDINATION,  in  scripture  ?  that  is,  an  ordination 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  171 

from  a  lower  to  a  higher  grade — from  a  deacon 
to  a  priest,  or  from  a  priest  to  a  prelate.  If  these 
orders  were  in  being,  such  transactions  must  have 
been  frequent.  And  is  it  credible,  that,  among 
them  all,  not  a  single  one  should  have  been  no- 
ticed in  the  sacred  record  ?  Not  only  are  the  scrip- 
tures silent,  as  to  any  such  occurrence,  but  also 
the  uninspired  history  of  the  church  for  more  than 
two  hundred  years.  The  advocates  of  prelacy 
have  been  challenged  to  produce  an  instance 
from  any  record,  for  the  first  two  centuries — they 
have  never  done  it,  and  never  will.  And,  if  there 
were  nothing  else,  this  would  be  enough  to  show 
that  the  prelatical  system  had  no  existence  in  the 
primitive  church. 

2.  If  the  government  of  the  church  is  prelatical, 
by  divine  appointment,  loluj  is  it  that  lue  never 
meet  icith  an  ordination  in  scripture  performed  by 
A  SINGLE  PERSON.  The  systciTi  supposes,  that  the 
ordaining  power  resides  in  prelatical  bishops  as 
individuals  ;  and  yet  there  is  no  case  recorded,  in 
which  a  single  individual  officiated — there  was 
always  a  plurality  of  ordainers.  It  may  be  said, 
I  know,  that  some  one  of  the  number  was  the  real 
ordainer,  and  that  the  others  only  concurred ;  or 
that  all  the  ordainers  belonged  to  the  superior 
grade.  But  this  is  mere  assumption.  It  takes 
for  granted,  too,  the  thing  to  be  proved  ;  and  that 


172  DISCOURSES  ON 

is,  that  there  was  a  superior  grade.  Of  this,  we 
have  yet  to  see  the  evidence.  And,  to  our  minds, 
the  indications  are  strong,  that  no  such  grade  ex- 
isted, from  the  fact,  that,  while  the  ordaining 
power  is  supposed  to  be  lodged  with  prelates  indi- 
vidually, there  is  no  example  of  a  single  person 
performing  the  ceremony. 

3.  If  there  were  prelates  in  the  primitive 
church,  ivhp  do  the  apostles  never  refer  to  the^n  in 
any  of  their  Epistles  ?  We  have  alluded  to  this 
already ;  and  we  now  ask  your  attention  to  it  dis- 
tinctly. The  apostles  write  to  "  the  saints,"  and 
to  the  parochial  "bishops,  and  deacons";  but 
never  record  a  syllable  in  recognition  of  that  su- 
perior officer,  who  is  supposed  to  rule  over  all 
these,  and  without  whom  neither  the  church,  nor 
the  ministry,  can  exist.  They  speak  of  the  au- 
thority which  parochial  pastors  are  to  exercise  and 
of  the  duties  which  they  are  to  perform — they 
speak  of  the  deacons,  and  of  their  qualifications — 
they  call  upon  the  people  to  know  their  spiritual 
rulers,  and  "  to  esteem  them  very  highly  in  love 
for  their  work's  sake," — but,  while  dwelling  on 
these  topics,  they  never  introduce  the  remotest 
allusion  to  any  one  occupying  the  place  of  a  pre- 
late. And  we  ask,  in  all  sincerity,  could  this  have 
been  the  case,  on  the  supposition  that  a  prelatical 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  173 

order  was  then  in  existence  ?  The  thing  is  unna- 
tural, to  a  degree  which  exceeds  behef. 

We  must  take  the  hberty,  then,  of  again  repeat- 
ing our  first  and  fundamental  position ;  and  of 
asking  you  now  to  receive  it  as  an  established 
truth, — that  '^  there  is  710  such  functionary,  knoivn 
to  the  New  Testament  at  all,  as  a  prelatical  bish- 
op." We  have  sought  for  him  in  all  the  places 
in  which  he  is  supposed  to  be  visible,  and  Ave  can- 
not find  him.  He  does  not  appear  by  ''  name," 
by  "  character,"  or  by  "  probable  intimation. 

We  feel  prepared  therefore  to  conclude  this  dis- 
course, by  saying,  in  the  language  of  another, — 
''  The  whole  system,  as  to  scriptural  authority,  is 
built  on  a  sandy  foundation  ;  and  is  buttressed  up 
by  violent  assumptions,  strained  or  false  analogies, 
forced  interpretations,  and  ultimatly  comes  to 
be  placed,  by  concessions  of  their  own,  upon  mere 
human  and  ecclesiastical  authority.  This  is  its 
proper  basis.  In  this  view  of  the  case,  they  have 
a  perfect  right,  if  they  think  it  best,  to  adopt  it,  to 
advocate,  and  to  recommend  it  to  others." — ''But 
to  claim  a  divine  right  for  this  system,  and  for 
this,  exclusively  of  all  others ;  and  that  so  as  to 
declare  that  no  ministry,  except  ordained  by  these 
modern  apostles,  is  valid ;  that  all  the  ordinances 
of  all  the  protestant  churches  in  Europe,  besides 
the  church  of  England,  are  vain,  and  without  the 
15* 


174  DISCOURSES  ON 

promise  of  Christ :  this,  we  say,  is  such  a  piece  of 
blind  and  bigotted  arrogance,  as  to  deserve  severe 
exposure  and  rebuke.  It  is  designed  to  promote 
a  spirit  of  exclusiveness  and  intolerance:  may 
such  designs  perish  forever !  and  may  all  minis- 
ters learn  that  they  are  brethren ;  and  that  all 
who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity  are 
one  holy,  catholic,  and  apostolical  church,  built, 
not  upon  the  traditions  of  men,  but  '  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus 
Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone.'  "* 

*  Powell. 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  175 


DISCOURSE  VI. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE   FATHERS— NO   PRELATICAL  BISHOPS 
DURING  THE  FIRST  TWO  CENTURIES— RISE  OF  PRELACY. 


Matt.  xv.  9.    But  in  vain  they  do  worsliip  me,  teaching  for  doc- 
trines the  commandments  of  men. 

A  LARGE  proportion  of  all  the  errors  in  religion, 
which  have  prevailed  in  the  world,  have  resulted 
from  allowing  uninspired  human  authority  to 
come  in,  in  connection  with  the  word  of  God,  as  a 
rule  of  faith.  This  was  the  rock,  on  which  the 
Jewish  people  made  shipwreck  of  all  the  precious 
mterests  involved  in  the  covenant,  which  God  had 
made  with  their  fathers.  He  gave  them  a  plain 
revelation,  to  be  the  guide  of  their  faith  and  prac- 
tice ;  but,  instead  of  adhering  to  it  exclusively, 
they,  in  process  of  time,  received  the  traditions 
of  men,  as  being  of  equal,  and  even  of  paramount 
authority.  And  this,  more  than  any  thing  else, 
was  the  occasion  of  that  extensively  irreligious 
condition,  in  which  they  were  found  at  the  com- 
ing of  their  Messiah;  and  which  led,  through  the 


176  DISCOURSES  ON 

judgments  of  heaven,  to  their  final  downfall  as  a 
nation. 

To  say  that  the  multiform  heresies  and  abomi- 
nations, which  have  appeared  in  connection  with 
the  Papal  hierarchy,  are  to  be  referred  directly  to 
this  source,  would  only  be  to  utter  what  is  too 
plain  to  require  proof.  And  the  same  thing  we 
are  now  compelled  to  say — though  the  remark 
may  not  be  applicable  to  the  same  extent — of 
that  lower,  less  complicated,  it  may  be,  but  equal- 
ly unscriptural  hierarchy,  the  succession  in  Avhich 
we  have  undertaken  to  discuss.  It  is  one  of  those 
impressions  that  we  cannot  resist,  if  we  were  to 
try,  that,  if  the  claims  of  prelatical  bishops  to  an 
exclusive  place  in  the  line  of  apostolical  succes- 
sion had  never  been  referred  to  any  other  tribunal 
than  the  holy  scriptures,  they  would  long  since 
have  been  set  aside  by  common  consent.  There 
is  nothing  there,  in  support  of  these  claims,  which 
is  so  obvious  and  tangible  as  to  command  the  as- 
sent of  unprejudiced  and  reflecting  minds.  And 
this  remark  we  do  not  venture,  without  having 
examined  the  ground  upon  which  it  rests.  We 
have  gone  with  the  advocates  of  prelacy  to  the 
strong  holds  of  their  system,  so  far  as  scriptural 
arguments  are  concerned;  and  we  have  seen, 
that,  when  assailed  with  the  simplest  weapons  of 
truth  and  argument,  there  is  not  one  of  their  num- 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  177 

ber  that  can  stand.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a 
prelatical  bishop  to  be  found  in  the  Avord  of  God, 
either  with,  or  without  a  name.  And  this,  we 
are  confident,  would  soon  be  the  judgment  of  all 
candid  inquirers  after  truth,  if  the  controversy 
were  not  renewed,  and  kept  up,  on  another  field. 
But  it  is  always  an  advantage  to  a  weak  cause, 
to  escape  from  a  rule  of  judgement  which  is  plain 
and  determinate,  to  one  which  is  ambiguous,  or 
difficult  to  be  defined;  and  if,  in  som.e  of  its 
points,  it  is  so  indeterminate  and  inconsistent  with 
itself  as  to  amount  to  no  rule  at  all,  the  advantage 
is  so  much  greater — the  controversy  may  then  be 
kept  up  interminably — and  a  show  of  reason  may 
be  given  to  that,  which,  in  point  of  fact,  has  no 
foundation  to  support  it.  This,  accordingly,  is 
the  management  resorted  to,  in  supporting  the 
system  of  high  church  episcopacy.  Many  of  the 
advocates  of  this  system  admit,  that  it  cannot 
be  established  by  an  appeal  to  scripture  alone. 
Here  I  have  only  to  recall  to  your  recollection  the 
acknowledgements  of  Tomline,  Palmer,  Ham- 
mond, Dodwell,  Beveridge  and  others,  which 
have  been  already  quoted.*  These  and  other 
authors,  not  only  speak  of  the  scriptural  evidence 
for  episcopacy  as  "doubtful,"  "  faintly  traced," 
not  "  exactly  recorded,"  &c.;  but  they  point  us 

*  See  pages  45-47. 


178  DISCOURSES     ON 

distinctly  to  "  the  Greek  and  Latin  Father s^''^  as 
the  source  from  which  the  true  and  satisfactory 
evidence  is  to  be  derived.  The  ground  of  the 
controversy  is  thus  shifted,  from  the  scriptural 
platform,  to  mere  human  authority,  uninspired, 
and  therefore  faUible — to  such  authority  as  stands 
in  the  same  category  v^ith  "  the  commandments 
of  men,"  referred  to  by  our  Saviour  in  the  text, 
and  '' the  traditions  of  men,"  against  which  the 
churches  are  warned  by  the  Apostle  Paul. 

And  to  give  you  an  idea  of  the  extent  to  which 
prelatical  writers  expect  us  to  defer  to  this  author- 
ity, I  furnish  you  with  the  following  expositions 
from  the  fountain  head.  In  Tract  No.  90,  of  the 
Oxford  series,  we  find  the  following  language, — 
"  In  the  sense  in  which  it  is  commonly  understood 
at  this  day,  scripture  is  not,  on  Anglican  princi- 
ples, the  rule  of  faiths — ''  We  do  not  make  scrip- 
ture the  rule  of  our  faith,  but  that  other  things,  in 
their  kind,  are  rulers  ;  likewise,  in  such  sort,  that 
it  is  not  safe,  without  respect  had  unto  them,  to 
judge  things  by  the  scripture  alone.'^ — Mr.  Ncav- 
man  says, — '^  Catholic  tradition  is  a  divine  infor- 
mant  on  religious  matters ;  it  is  the  univritten  luord. 
These  two,  the  Bible  and  catholic  tradition,  form 
together  a  united  rule  of  faith." — The  Gentle- 
mans'  Magazine  for  March  1843,  speaking  of  the 
church  of  England,  says, — "  Her  standard  of  ap- 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  179 

peal  in  matters  of  doctrine  and  discipline  is  Holy 
scripture,  as  interpreted  by  the  voice  of  the  ancient 
churchy — We  add  but  another  specimen,  which 
is  from  Mr.Keble  on  Primitive  Tradition — "  How- 
much  more  dutiful,  with  all  seriousness,  to  use 
our  privilege  of  belonging  to  a  church,  which,  on 
the  one  hand,  refers  us  to  scripture  as  the  stand- 
ard and  treasure  of  all  necessary  doctrine,  on  the 
other  hand,  ties  her  doctors  as  much  as  the  Coun- 
cil OF  Trent  does,  to  expound  scripture  according 
to  the  consent  of  the  ancient  father s^ 

We  have  taken  no  pains  in  making  these  se- 
lections ;  but  have  used  those  which  happened  to 
be  nearest  at  the  time.  Others,  of  a  similar  tenor, 
might  be  produced  to  any  extent.  These  are 
sufficient,  however,  to  give  a  fair  representation 
of  the  ground  which  is  taken  in  relation  to  this 
point,  by  the  advocates  of  prelacy  and  apostolical 
succession.  Their  doctrine,  when  set  forth  in  its 
mildest  form,  is,  that,  as  men  may  differ  in  their 
judgment  as  to  what  the  scriptures  teach,  it  is 
right  and  safe,  to  call  in  the  ancient  fathers  as  um- 
pires, and  let  them  decide — that,  as  they  lived  so 
near  to  the  apostolic  age,  they  must  have  known 
what  the  opinions  of  the  apostles  were,  or  how 
their  writings  were  understood  by  the  earliest 
churches — and  that  this  is  a  consideration  of  so 
much  weight,  that  Ave  are  bound  to  receive  their 


180  DISCOURSES     ON 

opinions  on  matters  of  faith  and  practice  as  cor- 
rect, even  if  the  scriptures  should  seem  to  us,  in 
our  private  judgment,  to  inculcate  a  different  les- 
son. So  that,  if  they  shall  say  that  prelatical  bish- 
ops are  a  distinct  and  superior  order  in  the  chris- 
tian ministry,  or  shall  speak  of  such  bishops  as  ex- 
isting in  their  day,  v^e  must  accept  this,  as  prov- 
ing beyond  all  controversy,  that  such  an  order  is 
of  divine  institution,  whatever  the  scriptures  may, 
or  may  not  say,  in  relation  to  it.  In  this  way,  the 
very  thing  is  done,  which  our  Saviour  charged 
upon  the  Jews :  the  word  of  God  is  made  void 
by  the  traditions  of  men  :  and  Ave  are  drawn 
away  from  a  rule  of  faith  which  is  plain,  brief, 
and  easily  understood,  to  another,  which  is  scat- 
tered through  scores  of  folio  volumes — written  in 
dead  languages,  which  few  understand — inacces- 
sible from  the  nature  of  the  case  to  nine  hundred 
and  ninety-nine  out  of  every  thousand  persons 
tliat  live — containing  puerilities,  fancies,  and  con- 
tradictions without  number— and  affording  discor- 
dant materials,  from  which  persons  of  almost  eve- 
ry shade  of  sentiment,  may  draw  something, 
which  Avill  seem  to  support  the  theory  which  they 
desire  to  establish. 

Now  to  all  this,  as  a  matter  of  principle,  we  en- 
tirely demur — not  only,  because  it  undervalues 
and  dishonors  the  word  of  God,  but  because  it 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  181 

ties  US  to  a  rule  of  faith,  which  is  far  more  likely  to 
lead  us  astray,  than  to  conduct  us  rightly.  We 
could  prove,  from  the  testimony  of  the  very  fa- 
thers who  are  appealed  to  in  this  controversy, 
that,  in  their  days,  it  Avas  regarded  as  apostolical, 
to  worshi])  the  reliques  of  departed  saints — to  pray 
for  the  dead — to  make  the  sign  of  the  cross — to  use 
consecrated  oil ;  nay  we  could  prove  that  they  re- 
ceived it  as  apostolical  to  believe,  that,  wherever 
vjood  is  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  the 
material  of  which  any  thing  is  composed,  wo  are 
to  regard  it  as  a  type  of  the  cross  of  Christ — such 
as  the  wood  of  the  rods,  which  Jacob  stuck  in  the 
troughs  before  Laban's  sheep,  and  the  wood  of 
the  staff,  with  which  he  passed  over  Jordan,  and 
the  wood  of  the  ladder,  which  he  saw  in  a  dream  ! 
any  one  who  wishes  to  be  satisfied  on  these  points, 
will  find  enough  for  his  purpose,  in  extracts  from 
the  writings  of  the  fathers,  contained  in  Vol.  i.  of 
the  Miscellaneous  Works  of  Dr.  Middleton.  In 
Taylor's  Ancient  Christianity,  too,  there  is  enough 
to  satisfy  the  most  incredulous,  that,  among  the 
earliest  of  the  fathers,  it  was  regarded  as  apostoli- 
cal, to  advocate  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  and 
to  hold  this  up  as  a  virtue  of  the  highest  order. 
And  surely,  if  authority  was  claimed  for  such  ab- 
surdities as  these,  it  is  not  wise  to  rely  upon  their 
interpretation  of  scripture,  or  their  testimonies  as 
16 


182  DISCOURSES  ON 

to  apostolical  usages,  in  reference   to  any  thing 
else. 

We  beg  you  to  understand,  however,  that,  in 
adverting  to  these  facts,  we  are  not  prompted,  in 
the  least  degree,  by  a  desire  to  escape  from  any 
legitimate  eflect  which  the  testimony  of  these  an- 
cient writers  is  adapted  to  produce.  Considered 
as  falhble  men  like  ourselves,  who  have  no  rule 
of  faith  to  present,  and  whose  judgment  should 
be  taken  under  all  the  circumstances  for  what  it 
is  worth,  we  are  perfectly  vs^illing  to  admit  them 
as  witnesses  upon  the  stand  in  the  trial  of  this 
cause.  We  ask  your  attention  to  the  following 
passages,  as  presenting  the  exact  truth  in  the 
case. — "  The  Fathers  will  receive,  and  ought  to 
receive,  just  the  degree  of  respect  that  we  should 
pay  to  any  other  men,  and  no  more  :  that  is,  their 
authority  will  be  in  proportion  to  their  knowledge, 
good  sense,  freedom  from  prejudice,  honesty, 
and  opportunities  of  forming  a  judgment.  It 
may  be  supposed,  indeed,  that  the  last  circum- 
stance, considering  their  proximity  to  the  aposto- 
lic age,  would  give  them  a  decided  superiority 
over  every  other  class  of  w^riters ;  but,  it  is  very 
possible,  that  their  disadvantage  in  other  respects 
may  depress  their  authority  in  the  greater  num- 
ber of  cases  below  that  even  of  a  third-rate  stu- 
dent of  scripture  of  a  later  age — ^just   as  a  man, 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  183 

with  bad  eyes,  may  not  see  an  object  so  clearly 
at  fifty  yards,  as  another,  Avith  good  eyes,  may 
see  it  at  half  a  mile.  Now,  almost  all  the  fathers 
had  very  bad  eyes ;  and,  what  is  worse,  they  at- 
tempted to  remedy  the  defect  by  still  worse  spec- 
tacles."— ''  The  reason  of  this  phenomenon  is  not 
far  to  seek.  Many  of  the  fathers,  indeed,  were 
men  of  unquestionable  genius,  and  of  large  erudi- 
tion (such  as  it  was  ;)  and  small  portions  of  many 
of  their  writings  may  be  read  with  profit.  But  they 
were  all  more  or  less  tainted — most  of  them  deep- 
ly— with  the  false  maxims  and  pernicious  preju- 
dices which  characterised  their  day ;  and  from 
the  influence  of  which,  without  being  more  than 
human,  it  Avas  impossible  that  they  could  be  free. 
This  is  no  disparagement  to  their  genius,  or  their 
learning,  any  more  than  it  is  disrespectful  to  Des- 
cartes or  Kepler  to  affirm,  that  having  been  early 
imbued  with  false  principles  of  science,  they  con- 
structed theories  which  we  do  not  feel  bound  to 
reverence,  because  we  reverence  the  men.  We 
can  separate  Descartes  from  his  ^  vortices,'  and 
Kepler  from  his  fanciful  analogies  between  the 
laws  of  the  planetary  system  and  the  *  five  regular 
solids.'  In  like  manner  we  may  well  despise  the 
interpretations  of  Origen,  without  despising  Ori- 
gen  himself."* 

#  Ed.  Rev.  for  April  1843  p.  355. 


184  DISCOURSES  ON 

In  proceeding  to  take  the  testimony  of  the  Fa- 
thers as  to  the  constitution  of  the  ministry  in  their 
day,  it  is  all  important  that  a  definite  understand- 
ing should  be  had  as  to  what  certain  words  and 
phrases,  which  are  likely  to  occur  in  the  course  of 
the  examination,  shall  be  considered  as  implying. 

If  I  should  ask  them,  for  instance,  whether 
there  were  bishops  in  the  church  of  Christ  in  their 
time,  and  they  should  answer  in  the  affirmative, 
the  friends  of  prelacy  must  not  insist  upon  the 
word  bishop  being  so  interpreted  as  to  mean 
something  entirely  different  from  the  sense  which 
it  bears  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles.  There  is, 
at  this  point,  one  of  the  most  remarkable  instances 
of  shifting  the  use  and  meaning  of  terms,  which  the 
progress  of  any  controversy  has  developed.  And, 
if  we  could  only  prevail  upon  the  advocates  of 
diocesan  episcopacy  to  be  consistent  with  them- 
selves, in  regard  to  the  import  of  the  word  ''bish- 
op," we  should  hear  but  little  more  of  what  the 
Fathers  have  to  say  in  support  of  their  cause. 
When  we  go  with  them  to  the  apostolical  epis- 
tles, to  see  whether  a  prelatical  bishop  can  be 
found  there,  they  tell  us  that  we  must  not  look  for 
him  under  the  name  ''bishop" — that  the  word 
*'  bishop,"  as  used  by  the  apostles,  does  not  mean 
a  prelate — that  this  is  the  scriptural  name  for  the 
second  order,  and  not  for  the  first.     But,  the  mo- 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSIOxN-.  185 

ment  we  turn  from  the  apostolical  writings,  to 
the  writings  even  of  those  fathers  who  personally 
knew  and  conversed  with  the  apostles,  behold  the 
meaning  of  the  word  "  bishop"  is  entirely  chang- 
ed !  It  signifies,  in  their  mouth,  a  wholly  differ- 
ent thing  from  that  which  it  signified  in  the 
mouths  of  their  inspired  instructors.  A  bishop, 
now,  is  not  a  parochial  pastor,  but  a  prelate — in- 
stead of  pointing  the  reader  to  a  middle  grade  in 
the  ministry,  it  points  him  to  a  superior  one.  The 
song,  that  '  names  are  nothing,'  is  now  hushed  ; 
and  a  name  not  only  becomes  every  thing,  but, 
without  any  notice  of  the  change,  is  made  to  bear 
a  new  and  unheard  of  sense. 

I  know  it  is  said,  in  justification  of  this  course, 
that,  after  the  apostolic  age,  the  name  "bishop" 
was  taken  from  the  second  order  in  the  ministry 
and  appropriated  to  the  first ;  and  this  would  no 
doubt  answer  to  the  exigency  of  the  case  exceed- 
ingly well,  if  the  fact  could  be  established.  But 
where  is  the  witness  ?  when  did  the  change  oc- 
cur ?  and  by  whose  authority  was  it  made  ? 
What  Avas  the  name  of  the  person  or  persons  who 
ventured,  even  before  Clement  and  Ignatius  wrote, 
to  mar  the  scriptural  phraseology,  by  taking  the 
word  "  bishop"  from  the  place  which  the  apostles 
had  assigned  to  it,  and  turning  it  to  a  different 
use  ?  To  these  questions,  the  common  answer 
16* 


186  DISCOURSES  ON 

is, — "  lue  learn  it  from  Theodoref\'  "  Theodo- 
RET,"  says  one,  ''  a  christian  ivriter  ivho  flourish- 
ed ONLY  about  two  hundred  years  after  those 
times'^  1 1  This  is  the  only  witness  brought  to  sup- 
port such  an  important  position.  Theodoret 
flourished  in  the  fifth  century ;  and  to  him  we  are 
referred  for  testimony  to  an  event,  which  is  sup- 
posed to  have  occurred  more  than  three  hundred 
years  before  he  was  born  !  With  those  who  can 
be  satisfied  with  such  proof  as  this,  it  is  useless  to 
reason.  The  unprejudiced  inquirer  will  go  with 
us,  when  we  say,  that,  Theodoret  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding^  it  is  fair  to  believe,  that  the 
earliest  christian  writers  use  the  word  "bishop" 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  was  used  by  the 
apostles. 

Another  thing  to  be  considered,  in  taking  the 
testimony  of  the  Fathers,  is  that  when  they  speak, 
as  they  sometimes  do,  of  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and 
Deacons,  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  they  refer  of 
course  to  three  distinct  grades  in  the  ministerial 
office.  Generally,  as  we  shall  see,  they  adopt 
the  scriptural  enumeration,  and  say,  "Bishops 
and  Deacons,"  or  Presbyters  and  Deacons  ;  but, 
in  a  few  cases,  these  names  will  all  be  found  to- 
gether, and  in  succession.  Such  passages  are 
seized  with  avidity,  by  the  advocates  of  prelacy, 
and  are  held  up  as  affording  condusive  proof  of  a 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION,  187 

ministry  of  three  orders.  The  Fathers,  they  say, 
speak  of  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons  ;  and 
what  more  do  we  want  ?  I  answer,  we  want  a 
great  deal  more  ;  because  we  have  akeady  shewn, 
what  indeed  no  one  denies,  that  ''  bishop"  and 
*'  presbyter,"  in  the  language  of  scripture,  are 
titles,  not  of  different  grades,  but  of  one  and  the 
same  grade  ;  and  it  is  not  to  be  believed,  Avithout 
proof,  that  the  Fathers,  who  lived  near  to  the  time 
of  the  apostles,  intended  to  use  them  in  any  other 
sense. 

And,  if  it  is  asked  why  they  should  use  the 
names  "bishop"  and  "presbyter"  together,  if 
they  refer  to  the  same  grade,  I  answer,  because, 
while  every  bishop  is  a  presbyter,  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  every  presbyter  is  a  bishop.  A  bishop  is 
an  overseer — he  is  the  appointed  pastor  of  a  par- 
ticular flock.  Bat,  besides  him,  there  may  be 
preachers  of  the  gospel  who  are  not  pastors,  and 
who  belong  to  the  grade  of  presbyters  as  well  as 
he.  Of  such,  there  were  many  in  the  primitive 
church,  as  there  are  many  in  all  the  denominations 
of  protestant  christians  at  the  present  day ;  and 
that  these  should  have  been  sometimes  enumerated 
by  the  Fathers,  in  connexion  with  the  parochial 
bishops,  is  nothing  more  than  the  circumstances 
of  the  case  would  lead  us  to  expect. 

With  these  remarks,  then,    we  proceed  to  a 


188  DISCOURSES  ON 

brief  examination  of  this  far-famed  patristic  tradi- 
tion, which  prelatical  Avriters  regard  with  so  much 
veneration,  and  which  is  so  essential  to  the  sup- 
port of  their  cause.  And,  that  no  exception  may- 
be taken  to  our  course,  we  shall  bring  into  view 
their  own  selections  from  these  ancient  writings — 
giving  them  in  the  words  of  their  own  translation 
— presenting  them  in  the  order  of  importance 
Avhich  they  assign  to  them — and  not  stopping  to 
discuss  the  question,  in  reference  to  particular 
passages,  whether  they  are  genuine  or  spurious  ; 
adding,  of  course,  such  other  passages,  as  may 
seem  to  be  necessary,  in  placing  the  true  meaning 
of  these  writers  before  you. 

I  shall  confine  myself  to  the  selections  used  by 
Percival,  in  his  treatise  on  apostolical  succession, 
which  is  circulated  as  a  standard  work. 

He  begins  with  Clement — called  Clement  of 
Rome,  to  distinguish  him  from  another  of  the 
same  name,  of  Alexandria.  He  flourished  about 
A.  D.  100 ;  and  is  generally  supposed  to  have 
been  the  person  referred  to  by  Paul,  Phil.  iv.  3. 
The  following  is  all  that  is  relied  upon  from  him 
— "It  will  behoove  us,  (christians,)  looking  into 
the  depths  of  divine  knowledge,  to  do  all  things 
in  order,  whatsoever  our  Lord  has  commanded 
us  to  do.  He  has  ordained,  by  his  supreme  will 
and  authority,  both  where  and   by  ivhat  perso7iS 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  189 

they  (the  sacred  services  and  oblations)  are  to  be 
performed.  For  the  chief  priest  has  his  proper 
services,  and  to  the  priests  their  proper  place  is 
appointed  ;  and  the  layman  is  confined  within  the 
bounds  of  what  is  commanded  to  laymen."  It 
would  no  doubt  be  difficult  for  an  un  practiced 
eye,  to  discover  the  reason  for  resorting  to  this 
passage,  since,  on  the  face  of  it,  there  is  not  the 
remotest  allusion  to  the  subject  under  considera- 
tion. What  Clement  does  not  say  of  himself, 
however,  he  is  made  to  say,  thus, — he  refers  to  a 
three -fold  ministry,  as  existing  under  the  Jewish 
dispensation ;  and,  in  doing  this,  his  object  must 
have  been  to  indicate  the  existence  of  the  same 
number  of  orders  in  the  christian  ministry  !  You 
will  not  expect  me  to  occupy  your  time  in  expos- 
ing the  Aveakness  of  such  reasoning  as  this. 

But  let  us  hear  what  Clement  does  say  in  pas- 
sages, which,  of  course,  the  advocates  of  prelacy 
never  quote.  I  give  you,  here,  the  translation  of 
Archbishop  Wake.  Speaking  of  the  apostles,  he 
says — "  They  went  abroad,  preaching  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand.  And  thus  preach- 
ing through  countries  and  cities,  they  appointed 
the  first  fruits  of  their  conversions  to  be  Bishops 
and  Minister s.^^  The  word  which  the  archbishop 
here  translates  ''ministers"  is  ^iaxovoug,  deacons. 
So  it  is  rendered  in  our  version  of  Paul's  Epistles; 


190  DISCOURSES  ON 

and  doubtless  the  reason  why  "  ministers"  was 
substituted  for  "deacons,"  in  translating  Cle- 
ment, was,  that  if  the  latter  word  had  been  chosen, 
it  would  have  made  him  speak  to  the  ear  of  the 
English  reader  exactly  in  the  language  of  scrip- 
ture— ''  bishops  and  deacons."  This  is  Paul's 
own  enumeration  of  ecclesiastical  officers — mean- 
ing by  "  bishops"  parochial  pastors.  He  never 
referred  to  one  of  a  superior  grade  ;  and  Clement 
has  followed  his  example. 

In  another  place,  Clement  says, — ''  Wherefore 
we  cannot  think,  that  those  may  be  justly  thrown 
out  of  their  ministry,  who  were  either  appointed 
by  them  (the  apostles,)  or  afterwards  chosen  by 
other  eminent  men,  with  the  consent  of  the  whole 
church ;  and  who  have,  with  all  lowliness  and 
innocency,  ministered  to  the  flock  of  Christ  in 
peace,  and  without  self-interest,  and  were  for  a 
long  time  commended  by  all.  For  it  would  be 
no  small  sin  in  us,  should  we  cast  off  those  from 
their  ministry  {s^itfy.o'n'^^s)  who  holily  and  without 
blame  fulfill  the  duties  of  it.  Blessed  are  those 
priests,  {Upsd^vrspoi,)  who,  having  finished  their 
course,"  &c.  Here  is  a  still  more  glaring  in- 
stance of  so  departing  from  the  common  transla- 
tion of  words,  as  to  prevent  the  English  reader 
from  seeing,  that  Clement  writes  on  the  subject  of 
the  ministry,  just  as  the  apostles  themselves  did. 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  191 

Why  should  the  word  npstf^urspof  be  rendered 
*'  priests,"  instead  of  presbyters,  if  this  was  not 
the  object  ?  And  why  should  rrig  s'irt(fxo-tris  be  ren- 
dered ''  their  ministry,"  instead  of  their  episcopa- 
cy, or  their  place  as  bishops.  Translate  his 
words,  as  the  same  words  are  translated  when 
used  by  Paul,  and  then  he  will  speak  j  ust  as  Paul 
spoke.  His  allusion  is  to  those,  who  occupied 
the  place  of  bishops,  or  parochial  pastors  ;  and  he 
pronounces  his  blessing  upon  them  as  presbyters 
— showing,  conclusively,  that  in  his  time  a  bishop 
and  a  presbyter  were  one  and  the  same  person,  as 
they  had  been  in  the  time  of  the  apostles. 

From  Clement,  Mr.  Percival  passes  to  Igna- 
tius, whom  he  calls  "  the  friend  and  disciple  of 
St.  John,  bishop  of  Antioch,  A.  D.  106."  And 
the  following  are  the  principal  extracts  from  his 
writings. — "  The  Bishops  appointed  to  the  utmost 
bounds  of  the  earth  are  the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ." 
"  I  think  you  happy  who  are  so  joined  to  your 
Bishop  as  the  church  is  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  Jesus 
Christ  to  the  Father  ;  that  so  all  things  may  agree 
in  unity." — "  I  exhort  you  that  ye  study  to  do  all 
things  in  a  divine  concord.  Your  Bishop  presid- 
ing in  the  place  of  C4od ;  your  Presbyters  in  the 
place  of  the  council  of  the  apostles ;  and  your  Dea- 
cons, most  dear  to  me,  being  intrusted  with  the 
ministry  of  Jesus  Christ." — ^^  Do  nothing  without 


192  DISCOURSES  ON 

your  Bishops  and  Presbyters." — ''  He  that  does 
any  thing  without  Bishops  and  Presbyters  and 
Deacons,  is  not  pure  in  conscience." — "  Attend  to 
the  bishop,  to  the  presbytery,  and  to  the  dea- 
cons," &c. 

The  force  of  these  passages  is  supposed  to  lie 
in  the  single  circumstance,  that  bishops,  presby- 
ters, and  deacons,  are  named  together.  But  we 
have  already  shewn,  that  there  is  no  sufficient 
reason  for  supposing  that  these  names  were  in- 
tended to  indicate  so  many  distinct  grades  in  the 
ministry.  Ignatius  was  writing,  in  all  these  cases, 
to  particular  churches;  and  he  speaks  to  them, 
individually,  of  their  Bishop.  And  what  so  natur- 
al, as  to  suppose  that  he  means  a  bishop,  in  the 
scriptural  sense  ?  It  is  plain,  from  other  conside- 
rations, that  he  can  mean  nothing  else.  He 
speaks  of  "  the  bishop  and  the  luhole  church,''^  and 
of  their  coming  "to  the  same  place,-''  In  his 
epistle  to  Poly  carp,  bishop  of  the  church  at  Smyr- 
na, he  says, — "  Let  not  thewidoivs  be  neglected; 
be  thou,  after  God,  their  guardian" — "  Inquire 
after  all  bi/  name.  Do  not  proudly  overlook  the 
men-servants,  and  the  maid-servants.'^''  Do  these 
sound  like  instructions  to  a  diocesan  bishop  ?  or 
are  they,  manifestly,  directions  to  the  pastor  of  a 
particular  church  ?  How  could  a  prelate  be  ex- 
pected to  individualize,  in  the   manner  here  de- 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  193 

scribed  ? — to  inquire  after  each  one  in  all  his  dio- 
cese "  by  name,"  and  attend  to  his  personal  de- 
sires and  wants  ?  The  inference  is  unavoidable, 
that  the  bishop  of  Ignatius,  like  the  bishop  of 
Clement,  is  of  no  higher  order  than  the  overseer 
of  a  single  church. 

Another  consideration,  which  settles  the  ques- 
tion in  regard  to  the  testimony  of  Ignatius,  is,  that 
he  speaks  oi presbyters  in  terms  which  place  them 
too  high,  to  admit  of  their  being  under  the  govern- 
ment of  a  superior,  in  the  character  of  a  prelate. 
In  his  Epistle  to  the  Trallians,  he  says — "  be  sub- 
ject to  jom  presbyters  as  to  the  apostles  of  Jesus 
Christ" — "reverence  Xhe  presbyters  as  the  sanhe- 
drim of  God  and  college  of  the  apostles."  To 
the  Magnesians,  he  speaks  of  Sotio  the  deacon 
being  subject  "  to  the  presbytery  as  to  the  law  of 
Jesus  Christ. '^'^  And,  in  writing  to  the  Smyrnians, 
he  calls  upon  them  to  "  follow  the  presbytery  as 
THE  Apostles."  It  thus  appears,  that,  while  he 
speaks  of  a  bishop  and  a  plurality  of  presbyters  in 
connection  with  each  church,  he  puts  the  pres- 
byters as  high  in  rank  and  authority  as  is  possible 
— that  is,  in  the  place  oithe  apostles.  And,  if  the 
people  were  to  be  subject  to  them  as  to  the  apos- 
tles, how  is  this  consistent,  in  any  possible  way, 
with  the  idea,  that  the  reins  of  government  and 
17 


194  DISCOURSES  ON 

discipline  were  not  in  their  hands,  but  in  those  of 
a  superior  bishop  ? 

The  next  father,  on  whom  reliance  is  placed, 
is  Irenceus,  a.  D.  178.  And  he  is  quoted  as 
writing  thus — "  Those  elders  in  the  church  are  to 
be  obeyed,  who  have  a  succession  from  the  apos- 
tles as  we  have  shown,  who,  together  with  the  suc- 
cession, have  received  a  certain  true  gift,  accord- 
ing to  the  decree  of  the  Father  ;  but  the  rest,  who 
shun  the  chief  succession,  and  are  gathered  toge- 
ther in  any  place,  are  to  be  suspected  as  heretics 
and  persons  of  bad  opinions ;  or  as  schismatics, 
and  conceited  persons,  pleasing  themselves ;  or, 
again,  as  hypocrites,  doing  this  for  the  sake  of 
gain  and  vain-glory ;  and  all  these  have  fallen 
from  the  truth." — •'  The  doctrine  of  the  apostles 
is  true  knowledge ;  and  the  ancient  state  of  the 
church,  and  the  character  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
is  according  to  the  succession  of  bishops,  to 
whom,  in  every  place,  they  delivered  the  church." 

The  value  of  these  passages  is  supposed  to  lie 
in  the  fact,  that  the  writer  speaks  of  bishops,  and 
represents  them  as  successors  of  the  apostles. 
But  here,  the  question  returns, — What  does  he 
mean  by  a  bishop  ?  And,  it  is  somewhat  strange, 
that  any  one  should  have  failed  to  perceive,  that, 
in  reference  to  this  point,  the  language  just  quoted 
explains  itself.      For  the  persons  who  are  called 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  195 

"  bishops,"  in  the  last  part  of  the  extract,  are  the 
same  persons  who  are  called  "  elders,"  or  pres- 
byters, in  the  first :  they  are  both  represented  as 
having  a  succession  from  the  apostles  ;  and,  shar- 
ing as  they  do  in  this  honor,  the  conclusion  must 
be,  that,  instead  of  belonging  to  different  grades, 
they  are  equals  in  office.  This  conclusion  might 
be  strengthened  by  almost  any  number  of  quota- 
tions from  Irenoeus.  He  is  full  of  passages, 
which  speak  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  alike  and 
indiscriminately,  as  having  the  apostolical  succes- 
sion. And,  in  one  passage  especially,  he  so  in- 
terweaves the  office  of  the  presbyters  with  that  of 
the  bishops,  that  they  cannot  be  separated :  it 
runs  thus, — "  Obey  those  presbyte7's  in  the  church 
who  have  succession,  as  we  have  shown,  from  the 
apostles ;  who,  with  the  succession  of  the  episco- 
pate received  the  gift  of  truth,"  &c.  If  this  father 
had  seen  with  the  eyes  of  modern  prelatists,  he 
would  not  have  expressed  himself  in  such  lan- 
guage. To  say  that  presbyters  have  the  succes- 
sion of  the  episcopate  (or  bishop's  office)  is  just 
saying  all  that  we  contend  for.  It  is  granting  that 
they  belonged  to  one  and  the  same  order  ;  and, 
as  coming  from  Irenoeus,  it  proves  that  in  his  day, 
as  it  was  in  scriptural  times,  the  name  bishop  sig- 
nified a  presbyter,  and  not  a  prelate. 

In  addition  to  Clement,  Ignatius,  and  Irenoeus, 


196  DISCOURSES  ON 

there  are  other  fathers  of  the  first  two  hundred 
years,  to  whom  we  might  refer  you.  But  we  do 
not  regard  it  as  needful  to  extend  the  hst;  be- 
cause it  is  not  pretended,  that  any  thing  can  be 
found  in  the  authors  of  this  period,  more  favora- 
ble to  the  cause  of  prelacy,  than  the  passages  just 
quoted.  The  three  witnesses  already  examined, 
are  those  on  whom  the  advocates  of  this  system 
mainly  rely  ;  and  if  their  testimony  will  not  sup- 
port the  cause,  it  would  be  in  vain  to  go  to  others, 
who  speak  in  less  explicit,  or  in  more  doubtful 
terms.  You  are  therefore,  now,  in  possession  of 
the  best  and  strongest  evidence  that  can  be  ad- 
duced from  the  writings  of  the  Fathers.  And,  on 
reviewing  it,  it  would  not  surprise  us,  if  those 
among  you  who  have  paid  no  particular  attention 
to  this  part  of  the  subject,  should  feel  disposed  to 
inquire, — Is  this  all  ?  Is  this  the  entire  amount 
of  that  boasted  proof,  the  report  of  which  has 
rung  the  world  over,  as  being  sufficient  to  demo- 
lish the  doctrine  of  parity  in  the  christian  ministry, 
and  to  estabhsh  the  claims  of  diocesan  episcopa- 
cy on  an  immovable  basis  ?  Yes  ;  it  is  all :  and 
the  whole  of  it  is  not  worth  a  rush,  unless  you 
take  for  granted  the  very  thing  to  be  proved — 
that  the  word  "bishop,"  as  used  by  these  writers, 
has  a  different  sense  from  that  which  it  bears  in 
scripture,  and  must  be  understood   to  signify  a 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  197 

prelate,  instead  of  a  parochial  pastor.  This  has 
not  been  proved,  and  never  can  be.  And,  while 
it  remains  unpvoved,  the  Fathers  will  continue  to 
speak,  against  the  hierarchy,  and  in  favor  of  pa- 
rity. 

Before  leaving  this  part  of  the  subject,  it  may 
be  proper  to  advert   to    the  statement   so   often 
made  by  the  advocates  of  prelacy,  that  no  one  can 
tell  AT  WHAT  TIME,  subsequcnt  to  the  apostolic  age, 
diocesan  episcopacy  came  into  existence.     We  wilt 
receive  what  they  allege   on  this  point,  from  the 
lips  of  Bishop  M'lllvaine.     He  says, — "  It  is  no- 
torious  that  at   this  present  day,    about    eleven 
twelfths  of  those   called    christians  in  the  world, 
are  under  the  jurisdiction  of  an  order  of  ministers 
called  bishops,  whose   individual   office  embraces 
the  essential  particulars  of  that   of  the   apostles, 
and  whose  succession  they  regard  as  derived  by 
an  unbroken  chain  from  apostolic  times."     Start- 
ing at  this  point,  he  goes  backward  on  the  line  of 
history,  and  affirms,  that,  if  this  episcopal  jurisdic- 
tion is  an  innovation  upon  scriptural  usage,  ^'  his- 
tory has  preserved  not  the  slightest  trace  of  its  be- 
ginning   and     progress" — "none    perceived   the 
usurpation" — ''neither  friend  nor  foe,   advocate 
nor   complainant,  heathen,  heretic,   nor  Jew,   is 
known   to    have   observed  it" — and  "  without   a 
dream  of  its  being  the   unquestionable  truth,  it 
17* 


198  DISCOURSES  ON 

continued  till  the  sixteenth  century  entirely  un- 
suspected^ 

We  have  long  ceased  to  wonder  at  any  asser- 
tions which  are  ventured  in  behalf  fo  this  cause, 
however  reckless  and  unsupported  by  proof;  but 
we  think  that  some  deference  was  due,  from  the 
author  of  this  language,  to  those  who  are  acknow- 
ledged to  have  studied  the  history  of  the  church 
and  the  world  to  some  purpose,  and  yet  have 
come  to  a  very  different  conclusion.  It  would, 
at  least,  have  been  fair  to  have  apprised  the  read- 
er, that  there  are  men  of  mind  and  learning  who 
do  not  believe  that  these  declarations  are  true. 

As  to  the  assertion,  that  "  eleven  twelfths"  of 
the  christian  world  are  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
prelatical  bishops  at  the  present  day,  it  would  not 
have  been  expedient,  perhaps,  to  have  gone  into 
an  exposition  of  the  way  in  which  the  calculation 
is  made.  Either  the  Papacy  is  included  in  this 
calculation,  or  it  is  not :  if  it  is,  we  care  not  to 
argue  the  question  :  those  who  choose  this  com- 
pany are  welcome  to  it ;  and  we  confess  our  ina- 
bility to  cope  with  them  in  the  counting  of  num- 
bers. If  the  Papacy  is  not  included,  then  the  re- 
sult of  the  calculation  is  no  where  in  the  neigbor- 
hood  of  the  truth. 

The  number  of  protestant  christians  in  the 
world,   may  be   estimated   at  fifty -five  millions 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  199 

Of  these,  about  twenty-four  millions,  nearly  one 
half  of  the  whole,  are  Lutherans.     These  have 
Bishops  by  name  :  but  they  are  not  prelatical  bish- 
ops, or  bishops  by  divine  right.      It  is  no   part  of 
the  Lutheran   creed,  that  a  bishop  belongs   to  a 
higher  grade  in  the  ministry,  and  a  presbyter  to  a 
lower.    Luther  himself  was  only  a  presbyter,  and 
yet  he  consecrated  their  first  bishop — three  pas- 
tors uniting  with  him  in  the  imposition  of  hands. 
And    the   Augsburgh   Confession    expressly   de- 
clares,  that,     ''  according  to  the  gospel,   or  jure 
divino,  no  jurisdiction  belongs  to  bishops  as  bish- 
ops."      They  are   persons  selected  from  among 
the  presbyters,   and  set  apart  to  an  office  of  gen- 
eral supervision  or  superintendence  ;    but  not  re- 
garded as  forming  a  distinct  and  necessary  grade 
in  the    constitution  of  the    ministry. — The   same 
thing  is  true  of  the  V/esleyan  Methodists.     They 
have  their  Bishops,  and  also   their  Presiding  El- 
ders ;    but  neither  of  these  are  considered  as  be- 
longing to  a  superior  grade,  established  by  divine 
authority  :    they  are  still  presbyters  in   common 
with  others,  and  are  appointed  to  the  office  of  su- 
perintedence   from  views   of  expediency  alone. 
From  the  Lutherans,   and  Wesleyan  Methodists, 
we  might  pass  to  the  Moravians,    the  reformed 
churches  of  France,  of  Holland,  of  Germany,  of 
Switzerland,   &c.;  and   after  passing   round  the 


200  DISCOURSES  ON 

protestant  world,  and  making  up  oin*  statistics, 
we  should  find  that  the  established  Church  of 
England,  with  her  daughter  in  this  country,  is  the 
only  protestant  church  which  maintains  the  divine 
right  of  prelatical  episcopacy.  All  others  left  this 
invention  behind  them,  when  they  escaped  from 
Rome  ;  and  have  reason  to  rejoice  in  the  liberty 
with  which  Christ  has  made  them  free. 

But  the  more  important  matter  which  concerns 
us  now,  is  the  allegation,  that  history  has  not  pre- 
served the  slightest  trace  of  the  origin  of  prelacy ; 
and  that  this  may  be  considered  as  amounting  to 
a  demonstration,  that  it  could  not  have  been  intro- 
duced, at  any  time  subsequent  to  the  apostolic 
age.  This  statement  of  the  case  proceeds  upon 
the  supposition,  that  we  have  no  reason  to  believe 
that  an  event  has  occurred  in  past  times,  unless  we 
are  furnished  with  credible  evidence  of  the  fact, 
horn  the  history  oi  those  times.  But  is  this  so? 
Let  us  apply  the  principle  to  some  other  things, 
which  are  not  remotely  connected  with  the  pre- 
sent subject.  Is  there  not  an  ecclesisatic,  now  in 
existence,  under  the  name  and  occupying  the 
station  of  an  archbishop  ?  Is  it  not  granted  by  all, 
that,  for  such  an  office,  there  is  no  provision  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  that,  during  the  life-time  of 
the  apostles,  it  did  not  exist  ?  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances,  how  can  we  do  otherwise  than  be- 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  201 

lieve,  that  both  the  name  and  the  office  have  come 
into  use  since  ?  And  yet,  who  can  point  us  to 
the  time,  and  the  place,  at  which  they  Avere  intro- 
duced, and  detail  the  circumstances  attending  the 
event  ?  This  is  one  of  the  changes  which  history 
is  not  likely  to  record  ;  for  the  reason,  that  they 
do  not  occur  at  once,  and  are  not  likely,  there- 
fore, to  excite  public  attention  at  the  time.  They 
came  on  gradually  and  silently — they  steal  into 
existence,  by  slow  and  imperceptible  degrees — so 
that  there  is  no  distinct  line,  on  one  side  of  v/hich 
you  can  say  they  ewe,  and  on  the  other  that  they 
are  not.  After  the  sun  has  risen,  we  can  say  '  it 
is  day  ';  but  in  the  twilight  of  the  morning  we 
find  it  impossible  to  distinguish  accurately  be- 
tween the  light  and  the  darkness. 

The  following  passage  from  Dr.  George  Camp- 
bell is  worthy  of  notice,  in  this  connection  ; — 
*'  There  are  very  few,  either  protestants  or  pa- 
pists, who  with  Baronius,  and  the  other  tools  of 
ecclesiastical  tyranny,  pretend  to  assign  to  the 
metropolitical  or  patriarchal  authority  an  aposto- 
lical original,  yet  there  is  not  a  single  objection 
that  can  be  raised  against  the  feasbility  of  an  ac- 
quisition of  power  in  the  bishops  over  the  presby- 
ters, that  does  not  operate  with  at  least  equal 
force  against  the  feasability  of  such  an  acquisition 
in  the  metropolitans  over  the  bishops,  and  in  the 


202  DISCOURSES  ON 

patriarchs  over  the  metropoUtans ;  and  I  may- 
add  with  equal  reason,  (as  it  came  afterwards,  in 
a  great  measure,  to  obtain,)  in  the  Pope  over  the 
whole  or  greater  part  of  the  christian  world. 
There  is  a  gradation  in  the  whole  progress :  the 
steps  by  which  we  ascend  are  exactly  similar. 
Nor  is  the  origin  of  any  one  part  of  the  system 
more  unaccountable  than  of  another. ''^'^ 

Again,  it  is  granted  on  all  hands,  as  we  have 
seen,  that  during  the  life-time  of  the  apostles,  the 
name  "  bishop"  was  used  to  designate  a  person 
of  no  higher  grade  than  a  presbyter :  now,  it  is 
used  to  signify  a  prelate  :  a  radical  change  has 
therefore  occurred,  in  relation  to  this  point ;  but 
who  can  tell  when — by  luhoin  introduced — or  by 
what  authority  sanctioned  ?  Here,  history  is  si- 
lent ;  and  yet,  who  doubts  the  fact  ?  I  know  it 
will  be  said,  that  Theodoret  speaks  of  this  change. 
But  again  the  question  arises,  who  was  Theodo- 
ret ?  He  lived  more  than  three  hundred  years  af- 
ter the  change  is  supposed  to  have  occurred,  and 
cannot  therefore  be  a  competent  witness.  He 
reports  it  as  having  occurred,  but  only  says,  in  re- 
gard to  the  date  of  the  event,  that  it  was  "  in  pro- 
cess of  time" — which  every  one  knows,  as  well 
without  his  testimony  as  with  it.  There  is  not  a 
particle  of  historical  testimony,  therefore,   as  to 

*  Ecclesiastical  History,  p.  149. 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  203 

the  particular  period,  within  which  this  important 
change  was  introduced. 

We  join  issue  with  the  advocates  of  prelacy 
here;  and  pledge  ourselves  to  show,  that  history 
has  preserved  traces  of  the  rise  of  bishops  as  a  su- 
perior grade  in  the  ministry,  which  are  far  more 
distinct  and  full,  than  any  traces  which  are  to  be 
found  of  the  transfer  of  the  name  bishop  from  a 
parochial  pastor  to  a  prelate.  If  Theodoret  is  a 
good  witness  on  the  latter  point,  Jerome  is  far 
better  on  the  former.  He  is  put  down  as  flour- 
ishing about  A.  D.  380,  nearly  a  century  earlier 
than  Theodoret.  For  learning,  as  well  as  piety, 
he  stood  unequalled  in  his  day.  Erasmus  says 
concerning  him,  that  he  was  "  without  controver- 
sy the  most  learned  of  all  christians,  the  prince  of 
divines,  and  for  eloquence  that  he  excelled  Cice- 
ro." Bingham,  author  of  the  Antiquities,  says 
that  he  "  Avill  be  allowed  to  speak  the  sense  of 
the  ancients."  And  the  great  Augustine  remarks 
concerning  him,  that  ''  Jerome  knew  every  thing 
that  was  known  by  man." 

What,  then,  does  Jerome  say  ?  The  following 
passages  are  in  place, — "  A  presbyter  therefore  is 
the  same  as  a  bishop  ;  and  before  there  were  by 
the  instigation  of  the  devil  parties  in  religion,  and 
it  was  said  among  different  people  "  I  am  of 
Paul;  and  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,"   the 


204  DISCOURSES    ON 

churches  were  governed  by  the  joint  council  of 
the  presbyters.  But  afterivards^  when  every  one 
accounted  those  whom  he  baptized  as  belonging 
to  himself,  and  not  to  Christ,  it  was  decreed 
throughout  the  whole  world  that  one,  chosen  from 
among  the  presbyters,  should  be  set  over  the  rest^ 
and  that  the  whole  care  of  the  church  should  be 
committed  to  him,  and  the  seeds  of  schism  taken 
away." — "  As  to  the  fact  that,  afterivards^  one 
was  elected  to  preside  over  the  rest^  this  was  done 
as  a  remedy  against  schism,"  &c. — "  Our  inten- 
tion, in  these  remarks,  is  to  show  that  among  the 
ancients  presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  very 
SAME.  But  that  by  little  and  little^  that  the  plants 
of  dissentions  might  be  plucked  up,  the  whole 
concern  was  devolved  upon  an  individual.  As 
the  presbyters,  therefore,  know  that  they  are  sub- 
jected, by  the  custom  of  the  churchy  to  him  wdio  is 
set  over  them ;  so  let  the  bishops  know,  that  they 
are  greater  than  presbyters  more  by  custom  than 

by      ANY    REAL    APPOINTMENT     OF     ChRIST."        HcrC, 

we  think,  is  a  slight  trace  at  least,  not  only  of  the 
period  within  Avhich  bishops  were  elevated  above 
presbyters ;  but  also  of  the  manner  in  which  this 
distinction  arose.  Originally,  Jerome  says,  they 
were  ''  the  very  same" — the  change  was  brought 
about  *'  by  little  and  little"^ — and  it  had  its  ori- 
gin, in  electing  one  presbyter  "to  preside  over 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  205 

the  rest,"  as  a  remedy  against  schism.  A  more 
natural  account  of  the  way  in  which  such  a 
change  might  be  supposed  to  occur,  could  not  have 
been  written.  It  is  plain,  full,  and  directly  to  the 
point — it  comes  from  the  most  eminent  man  of 
his  time  ;  and  was  written  less  than  three  hundred 
years  after  the  death  of  the  last  apostle. 

Nor  is  Jerome  the  only  one  who  has  expressed 
himself  on  the  same  subject,  substantially  in  the 
same  way.  Bishop  JcAvell  represents  Augustine, 
who  was  cotemporary  Avith  Jerome,  as  saying, — 
"  The  office  of  bishop  is  above  the  office  of  priest, 
not  by  authority  of  the  so'iptures,  but  after  the 
names  of  honor,  which  the  custom  of  the  church 
hath  noio  obtained.'^''  A  similar  view  is  expressed 
by  Hilary,  (or  Ambrose,)  who  flourished  about 
A.  D.  376— by  Chrysostom,  A.  D.  398— by  The- 
odoret,  A.  D.  430 — by  Primasius,  who  wrote 
about  the  same  time — andbySedulius,  A.  D.  470.*^ 
They  all  agree  with  Jerome,  that  presbyter  and 
bishop  were  the  same  at  first,  and  that,  in  their 
day,  a  different  arrangement  had  been  intro- 
duced. 

To  the  opinions  of  these  Fathers,  we  shall  now 
add  some  authorities  from  the  most  distinguished 
modern  historians.  Dr.  Campbell  says, — "  From 
the  imperfection  of  the  ecclesiastic  history  of  the 

*  See  Dr.  Miller  on  the  Christian  Ministry,  p.  205-208. 
18 


206  DISCOURSES  ON 

first  ages,  it  is  impossible  to  trace  the  progress  of 
usurpation  through  its  various  stages,  with  all  the 
clearness  that  could  be  wished.  Enough,  how- 
ever, may  be  clearly  discovered,  when  we  com- 
pare the  state  of  things  in  latter  times,  with  w^hat 
we  learn  from  the  sacred  record,  and  from  the 
genuine  undisputed  remains  of  the  apostolic  fa- 
thers, to  satisfy  us  both  of  the  reality  and  of  the 
greatness  of  that  usurpation. ^'^ 

Dr.  Mosheim,  who  will  be  acknoAvledged  to 
have  studied  the  history  of  the  church  with  care, 
in  speaking  of  the  first  century,  says, — ''The 
rulers  of  the  church  at  this  time  were  called  either 
presbyters  or  bishops,  which  two  titles  are  in  the 
New  Testament,  undoubtedly  applied  to  the  same 
orderofmen."  *  *  "A  bishop,  duringthe first 
and  second  centuries,  was  a  person  who  had  the 
care  of  one  christian  assembly,  which,  at  that  time, 
was,  generally  speaking,  small  enough  to  be  contain- 
ed in  a  private  house."  *  *  "  But  the  number  of 
the  presbyters  and  deacons  increasing  with  that 
of  the  churches,  and  the  sacred  work  of  the  min- 
istry growing  more  painful  and  weighty  by  a 
number  of  additional  duties,  these  new  circum- 
stances required  new  regulations.  It  was  then 
judged  necessary,  that  one  man  of  distinguished 
gravity  and  wisdom  should  preside  in  the  council 

*  Ecc.  Hist,  p.  149. 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  20j7 

of  presbyters,  in  order  to  distribute   among  his 
colleagues  their  several  tasks,  and  to  be  a   centre 
of  union  to  the  whole  society."       Following  the 
line  of  events  into  the  third  century,  he  goes  on  to 
say, — ''  The  face  of  things  began  now  to  change 
in  the  christian  church.     The  ancient  method  of 
ecclesiastical  government  seemed,  in  general,  still 
to  subsist,  while,  at  the  same  time,  by  impercepti- 
ble  steps,  it  varied  from  the  primitive  rule,    and 
deo^enerated  towards  the  form  of  a  reliofious  mon- 
archy.     For  the  bishops  aspired  to  higher  degrees 
of  power  and   authority   than  they   had  formerly 
possessed,  and  not  only  violated  the  rights  of  the 
people,  but  also  made  gradual  encroachments  up- 
on the   privileges  of  the   presbyters.       And   that 
tliey  might  cover  these  usurpations  with  an  air  of 
justice,  and  an  appearance  of  reason,  they  pub- 
lished new  doctrines  concerning  the  nature  of  the 
church,  and  of  the  episcopal  dignity." — Passing 
to  the   fourth   century,   he  speaks   thus, — "  The 
bishops,  whose  opulence  and  authority  were  con- 
siderably increased  since  the  reign  of  Constantine, 
began  to  introduce  gradually  innovations  into  the 
form  of  ecclesiastical  discipline,  and  to  change  the 
ancient  government  of  the  church.     Their   first 
step  was  an  entire  exclusion   of  the  people  from 
all  part  in  the  administration  of  ecclesiastical  af- 
fairs ;    and  afterwards  they,  by  degrees,  divested 


208  DISCOURSES  ON 

even  the  presbyters  of  their  ancient  privileges, 
and  their  primitive  authority."  #  #  ''  Hence,  it 
came  to  pass,  that  at  the  conclusion  of  the  fourth 
century,  there  remained  no  more  than  a  mere 
shadow  of  the  ancient  government  of  the  church. 
Many  of  the  privileges  which  had  formerly  be- 
longed to  the  presbyters  and  people,  were  usurp- 
ed by  the  bishops  ;  and  many  of  the  rights,  which 
had  been  formerly  vested  in  the  universal  church, 
were  transferred  to  the  emperors,  and  to  subordi- 
nate officers  and  magistrates." 

To  the  views  of  Mosheim,  we  add  those  of 
Gibbon,  who  had  no  favorite  views  of  church 
government  to  support,  and  may  therefore  be  sup- 
posed to  write  impartially.  In  his  "  Decline  and 
Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,"  he  says,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  first  and  second  centuries, — "  The 
public  functions  of  religion  were  solely  entrusted 
to  the  established  ministers  of  the  church,  the 
bishops  and  the  presbyters ;  two  appellations  which, 
m  their  first  origin,  appear  to  have  distinguished 
the  same  office,  and  the  same  order  of  ;  :  -sons." 
#  ^  "  In  proportion  to  the  respective  niJ  bers  of 
the  faithful,  a  larger  or  smaller  number  •  •*  these 
episcopal  presbyters  guided  each  infant  cc  ^grega- 
tion,  with  equal  authority,  and  united  councils. 
But  the  most  perfect  equality  of  freedom  requires 
the  directing  hand  of  a  superior  magistrate  ;    and 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION. 


209 


the  order  of  public  deliberation  soon  introduces 
the  office  of  a  president,  invested  at  least  with  the 
authority  of  collecting  the  sentiments,  and  of  ex- 
ecuting the  resolutions  of  the  assembly.  A  re- 
gard for  the  public  tranquility,  which  would  so 
frequently  have  been  interrupted  by  annual,  or  by 
occasional  elections,  induced  the  primitive  chris- 
tians to  constitute  an  honorable  and  perpetual 
magistracy,  and  to  choose  one  of  the  wisest  and 
most  holy  among  their  presbyters,  to  execute  du- 
ring his  life  the  duties  of  their  ecclesiastical  gov- 
ernor. It  was  under  these  circumstances,  that 
the  lofty  title  of  bishop  began  to  raise  itself  above 
the  humble  appellation  of  presbyter,  and  while  the 
latter  remained  the  most  natural  distinction  for 
the  members  of  every  christian  senate,  the  former 
was  appropriated  to  the  dignity  of  its  new  pre- 
sident." 

We  here  close  our  citation  of  authorities. 
They  agree  entirely  as  to  the  main  facts  in  the 
case.  And  yet,  in  the  face  of  their  united  judg- 
ment, we  are  gravely  told,  that  the  divine  right  of 
prelacy  was  never  called  in  question  for  sixteen 
hundred  years  ;  and  that,  if  any  change  did  occur 
in  the  government  of  the  church  during  this  pe- 
riod, "  neither  friend  nor  foe,  advocate  nor  com- 
plainant, heathen,  heretic,  nor  Jew,  is  known  to 
have  observed  it"! ! ! 
18* 


210  DISCOURSES  ON 

The  first  step,  in  the  course  of  innovation  upon 
the  scriptural  model  was  the  choice  of  one  pres- 
byter to  preside  over  the  rest :  afterwards  he  be- 
came a  standing  president,  and  finally  a  president 
for  life :  to  this  president,  in  process  of  time,  the 
name  bishop  was  applied  as  his  distinctive  title. 
And,  advancing  from  step  to  step,  the  usurpation 
grew,  until  it  ended,  not  merely  in  diocesan  epis- 
copacy, but  in  popery  itself. 

Our  argument  against  the  divine  right  of  prela- 
cy is  now  finished.  We  have  sought  in  vain  for 
a  prelatical  bishop,  in  connection  w^ith  the  church 
as  founded  by  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles.  He 
does  not  appear,  in  the  uninspired  history  of  the 
first  two  centuries,  any  more  than  on  the  pages  of 
the  New  Testament  record.  In  the  writings  of 
the  earliest  fathers,  as  w^ell  as  in  the  language  of 
the  apostles,  bishops  and  presbyters  are  "  the 
VERY  SAME."  And  this  is  so  obvious,  that  we  are 
not  surprised  to  hear  even  a  prelate  expressing 
himself  in  the  following  terms, — "I  hope  my 
readers  will  see  what  weak  proofs  are  brought  for 
this  distinction  and  superiority  of  order.  No 
scripture,  no  primitive  general  council,  no  gene- 
ral consent  of  primitive  doctors  and  fathers,  no, 
not  one  j)rimitive  father  of  note,  speaking  particu- 
larly, and  home  to  our  purpose."*' 

■^  Bishop  Croft's  Naked  Truth,  p.  47. 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  211 


DISCOURSE  VII. 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION  BROUGHT  TO  THE  TEST 
OF  HISTORY— CANNOT  BE  TRACED— NEITHER  IN  THE 
LINE  OF  THE  ROMISH,  NOR  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 

Nehemiah  \'ii.  64.  These  sought  their  register  among  those  that 
were  reckoned  by  genealogy,  but  it  was  not  found  :  therefore  were 
they,  as  poHuted,  put  from  the  priesthood. 

This  passage  has  reference  to  the  mode  of  as- 
certaining the  line  of  succession  in  the  Jewish 
Priesthood.  This  office  was  hereditary  in  the 
family  of  Aaron  ;  and  the  first-born  of  the  oldest 
branch  of  this  family  was  the  high  priest,  when 
there  was  no  ceremonial  blemish  to  interrupt  the 
natural  order.  Under  these  circumstances,  all 
that  was  needful,  in  determining  the  claims  of  an 
individual  to  the  priesthood,  was  a  knowledge  of 
his  family  relations.  And  that  nothing  might  be 
wanting  towards  an  easy  ascertainment  of  these 
relations,  every  family  was  required  to  prepare 
and  preserve  a  genealogical  record — the  original 
of  which  was  lodged  at  Jerusalem,  to  be  consult- 
ed when  necessary.      So  that  when  a   difficulty 


DISCOURSES     ON 

arose,  as  to  the  claims  of  an  unknown  individual, 
he  had  only  to  produce  his  register,  and  all  were 
ready  to  abide  by  its  decision. 

The  case  adverted  to  in  the  text,  was  a  case  in 
which  the  decision  was  against  the  persons  whose 
names  are  mentioned  in  the  history.  Their  title 
to  the  priesthood  was  disputed ;  and  to  establish 
it,  they  sought  the  register  of  their  names  in  the 
genealogical  tables,  but  they  were  not  to  be 
found.  And,  without  farther  ceremony,  they 
were  ''  put  from  the  priesthood,"  "  as  polluted" 
— that  is,  as  not  entitled,  from  this  circumstance, 
to  the  honors  of  the  office. 

This  was  a  righteous  decision ;  because  the 
rule  of  judgment  was  scriptural,  and  safe  in  its 
operation.  And  if  those  of  our  own,  or  of  any 
other  age,  who  claim  to  be  the  true  and  only  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles  in  the  power  of  ruling  the 
church  and  perpetuating  a  gospel  ministry,  could 
substantiate  their  claims  by  any  such  evidence  as 
that  which  the  application  of  such  a  rule  would 
furnish,  v\^e  should  not  think  for  a  moment  of  call- 
ing their  claims  in  question.  We  have  no  right, 
indeed,  to  demand  evidence  of  precisely  the  same 
kind;  but  we  have  a  right  to  insist  upon  proof 
which  will  be  equally  conclusive  ;  because  the  in- 
terests involved  are  too  momentous  to  be  hazard- 
ed upon  uncertain  and  doubtful  grounds. 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  213 

If  there  is  any  foimdation  in  truth  for  the  doc- 
trine of  prelatical  succession,  the  consequence  in 
relation  to  our  country  must  be,  that,  of  more 
than  tivo  millions  of  professing  christians,  less 
than  one  hundred  thousand  have  any  true  connec- 
tion with  the  church  of  Christ — more  than  nine- 
teen twentieths  are  to  be  set  down,  as  connected 
with  an  unauthorised  and  spurious  ministry — 
their  churches  are  to  be  regarded  as  no  churches, 
their  sacraments  as  no  sacraments,  and  their  hope 
of  salvation  as  unsanctioned  by  the  promises  of 
God.  In  view  of  this  state  of  the  case,  we  fully 
agree  in  opinion  with  a  living  bishop,  when  he  de- 
clares this  question  of  apostolical  succession  to  be 
^'  a  question  involving  the  eternal  interests  of  mill- 
ions." And,  where  such  interests  are  to  be  dis- 
posed of,  we  have  a  right  to  expect  that  every 
thing  will  be  made  plain  :  we  may  say,  with  good 
reason,  to  the  few  men  among  us  who  claim  to  be 
exclusively  the  successors  of  the  apostles, — Pro- 
duce e  evidence  of  your  claim,  and  let  it  be  of 
such  lature  that  none  can  misinterpret  or  evade 
it.  :  *'ou  cannot  point  us  to  a  register,  in  which 
your  \i  imes  are  written  by  competent  authority, 
or  exhibit  the  signs  of  an  apostle  in  divers  won- 
ders and  miracles  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  give  us  at 
least  such  proof  as  will  demonstrate  that  you  are 


214  DISCOURSES  ON 

not  mistaken — and  then,  we  shall  not  hesitate  to 
receive  and  honor  your  exclusive  pretensions. 

Our  object  in  this  discourse  will  be  to  show, 
that,  even  granting  every  thing  else  which  this 
system  claims,  the  line  of  succession  cannot  be 
TRACED — no  prelatical  bishop  of  the  present  day 
can  be  sure,  on  his  own  principles,  that  he  is  con- 
nected witli  the  apostles  by  an  unbroken  series 
of  valid  ordinations. 

No  doubt  if  bold  and  confident  assertions  were 
to  be  accepted  as  evidence,  the  proof  would  be 
easy ;  for,  accustomed  as  we  are,  in  connection 
with  this  whole  subject,  to  meet  with  strong  and 
sweeping  assertions  which  are  unsupported  by 
facts,  we  think  that  one  of  the  choicest  examples 
of  this  method  of  operating  upon  the  public  mind 
appears  at  the  point  at  which  we  have  now  arriv- 
ed. Dr.  Hook  says, — "  This  continued  descent 
is  evident  to  every  one  ivlio  chooses  to  investigate 
if^ — "  There  is  not  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon 
among  us,  luko  cannot^  if  he  pleases^  trace  his 
own  spiritual  descent  from  St.  Peter,  or  St.  Paul.'* 
The  Oxford  divines  say, — "  As  to  the  fact  of  the 
apostolical  succession,  that  is,  that  our  present 
bishops  are  the  heirs  and  representatives  of  the 
apostles  by  successive  transmission  of  their  prero- 
gative of  being  so,  this  is  too  notorious  to  require 
proof.     Every  link  in  the  chain  is  knoivn^  from 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  215 

St.  Peter  to  our  present  Metropolitans."  An  au- 
thor before  me  challenges  the  whole  world  to  pro- 
duce "  a  flaw  in  the  line  of  descent";  and  says, — 
"  We  can  give  you  the  lists  of  our  bishops  from 
the  earliest  to  the  present  times."  And,  in  a  Dic- 
tionary of  the  Church,  published  in  New  York  in 
1839,  we  are  told,  that  it  cannot  bear  any  dispute, 
that  "  it  is  now  more  easily  to  be  proved,  that  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  was  canonically  or- 
dained, than  that  any  person  now  living  is  the 
son  of  him  luho  is  called  his  father  ;  and  that  the 
same  might  have  been  said  of  any  archbishop  or 
bishop,  that  ever  sat  in  that  or  any  other  episco- 
pal see,  during  the  time  of  his  being  bishop." 

That  all  the  friends  of  diocesan  episcopacy  are 
so  far  deluded  as  to  embrace  this  fancy,  we  do 
not  mean  to  insinuate.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
rejoice  to  know  that  thousands  are  found  in  their 
ranks,  who  not  only  dissent  from  the  opinion  ex- 
pressed in  the  foregoing  extracts,  but  even  repu- 
diate the  notion  as  absurd. 

The  judicious  Hooker  admits,  that  ordinations 
have  often  occurred  without  a  bishop  to  ordain, 
and  says, — ^'  We  are  not  simply,  and  without  ex- 
ception, to  urge  a  lineal  descent  of  power  from 
the  apostles  by  a  continued  succession  of  bishops 
in  every  effectual  ordination." 

Bishop  Hoadley's  opinion  is  thus  expressed, — 


216  DISCOURSES     ON 

"  As  far  as  we  can  judge  of  this,  God's  provi- 
dence never  yet^  in  fact ^  kept  up  a  regular  uninter- 
rupted succession  of  rightful  bishops." — "  It  hath 
not  pleased  God  in  his  providence  to  keep  any 
proof  of  the  least  probability,  or  moral  possibility, 
of  a  regular  uninterrupted  succession  ;  but  there 
is  a  great  appearance,  and  humanly  speaking  a 
certainty  of  the  contrary,  that  the  succession  hath 
often  been  interrupted.''^ 

Bishop  Stillingfleet  says, — "  By  the  loss  of  the 
records  of  the  British  churches,  ive  cannot  draiv 
down  the  succession  of  bishops  from  the  apostolic 
times  ;  that  of  the  bishops  of  London,  by  Jocelyn, 
of  Furnes,  not  being  worth  mentioning." 

Archbishop  Usher  quotes  with  approbation 
another  author  who  states, — "  The  accounts  given 
of  British  bishops,  who  stand  at  the  head  of  the 
succession,  were  rather  agreeable  to  common  fame 
and  opinion  than  any  certainty  of  history .^^ 

Archbishop  Whately  says, — "  There  is  not  a 
minister  in  all  Christendom,  who  is  able  to  trace 
up,  ivith  any  approach  to  certainty,  his  own  spirit- 
ual pedigree."  We  read  of  bishops  consecrated 
when  mere  children  ;  of  men  officiating,  who 
barely  knew  their  letters  ;  of  prelates  expelled, 
and  others  put  into  their  places,  by  violence  ;  of 
illiterate  and  profligate  laymen,  and  habitual 
drunkards,  admitted  to  holy  orders ;  and,  in  short, 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  217 

of  the  prevalence  of  every  kind  of  disorder  and 
reckless  disregard  of  the  decency  which  the  apos- 
tle enjoins.  It  is  inconceivable,  that  any  one, 
even  moderately  acquainted  v^ith  history,  can  feel 
a  certainty,  or  any  approach  to  certainty,  that 
amidst  all  this  confusion  and  corruption,  every 
requisite  form  was,  in  every  instance,  strictly  ad- 
hered to  by  men,  many  of  them  openly  profane 
and  secular,  unrestrained  by  public  opinion, 
through  the  gross  ignorance  of  the  population 
among  whom  they  lived  ;  and  that  not  one,  not 
duly  consecrated  or  ordained,  was  admitted  to 
the  sacred  offices." 

The  present  Bishop  of  Hereford  remarks  in  a 
charge  to  his  clergy, — "  You  will  exceed  all  just 
bounds,  if  you  are  constantly  insisting  upon  the 
necessity  of  a  belief  in,  and  the  certainty  of,  the 
apostolical  succession  in  the  bishops  and  presby- 
ters of  our  church  as  the  only  security  for  the  effi- 
cay  of  the  sacraments." — "  To  spread  abroad  this 
notion  would  be  to  make  ourselves  the  derision  of 
the  world. "^"^ 

We  only  add  the  following  language  from  a  re- 
cently published  "  Plea  for  Episcopacy,"  by  the 
Rev.  J.  E.  Riddle,  himself  also  a  minister  of  the 
church  of  England, — "  Whatever  may  become  of 
the  apostolic  succession  as  a  theory,  or  an  institute, 
it  is  impossible  at  all  events  to  prove  the  fact  of 
19 


218  DISCOURSES  ON 

such  succession^  or  to  trace  it  down  the  stream  of 
time.  In  this  case  the  fact  seems  to  involve  the 
doctrine ;  and  if  the  fact  be  hopelessly  obscure^ 
the  doctrine  is  irrecoverably  lost.^^ — "  It  is  impos- 
sible to  prove  the  personal  succession  of  modern 
bishops,  in  an  unbroken  episcopal  line,  from  the 
apostles,  or  men  of  the  apostolic  age." 

Now  if  there  are  names,  among  the  living  or 
tde  dead,  worthy  of  being  referred  to  as  authority 
on  such  a  subject,  they  are  certainly  some  of  those 
from  wiiom  these  expressions  of  opinion  have 
come.  And  yet,  as  if  no  such  intimations  had 
fallen  from  the  lips  of  friend  or  foe,  the  dogmatic 
assertion  continues  to  be  repeated,  Avithout  proof, 
that  there  is  no  difficulty  whatever  in  tracing  an 
unbroken  line  of  valid  episcopal  ordinations 
from  the  time  of  the  apostles  to  the  present  day. 

It  is  not  a  little  amusing  to  find  the  position 
taken  by  some  modern  defenders  of  the  system, 
that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  upon  those  who  deny 
the  apostoHcal  succession.  '  The  final  promise  of 
Christ  to  the  apostles,'  it  is  said  '  guarantees  that 
there  shall  be  a  succession — if  the  succession  has 
failed,  the  promise  of  Christ  has  failed  also — we 
are  entitled  therefore  to  assume  that  it  has  7iot 
failed — and  those  Avho  say  that  it  has,  are  bound 
to  shew  when,  where,  and  in  what  respects.' 
Wellandconclusively  reasoned,  no  doubt  I — if  you 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  219 

admit  that  Christ  promised  just  such  a  succession, 
as  that  which  this  argmnent  contemplates.  For 
such  a  succession,  however,  we  have  shewn  there 
is  no  starting  point  in  the  word  of  God  :  such  a 
succession  Christ  never  promised  :  and  we  find 
additional  proof  of  this  in  the  fact,  that  no  suffi- 
cient evidence  can  be  produced,  that  a  succession 
of  this  particular  kind  has  obtained  and  been  per- 
petuated in  the  world. 

In  any  chain,  consisting  of  links  depending  up- 
on each  other,  the  strength  of  the  whole  is  just 
equal  in  amount  to  that  of  the  weakest  part :  the 
entire  chain  will  bear  no  more  than  the  weakest 
Hnk  is  adequate  to  sustain  :  in  proving  that  one  is 
defective,  therefore,  you  destroy  the  utility  of  all 
the  rest,  however  perfect  and  massive  you  may 
suppose  them  to  be.  Now,  in  the  chain  of  the 
apostolical  succession,  the  links  are  so  many  suc- 
cessive acts  of  ordination,  performed  in  a  certain 
way,  by  one  prelatical  bishop  upon  another — 
each  one  depending  for  its  validity  upon  that 
which  immediately  preceded  it.  In  order  there- 
fore to  establish  the  defectiveness  of  the  whole, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  travel  along  the  entire  line 
and  inspect  the  condition  of  every  part ;  but  only 
to  prove,  that  there  are  one  or  more  places,  at 
which  the  links  are  unsound,  or  the  chain  broken. 
From  any  given  point,  at  which  this  fact  can  be 


220  DISCOURSES  ON 

established,  the  succession  ceases — all  that  comes 
after  this  is  worthless,  on  the  principles  of  the 
succession  scheme  itself. 

We  proceed  then,  in  accordance  with  these 
views,  to  examine  some  parts  of  the  chain,  which 
is  supposed  to  connect  the  prelatical  bishops  of 
the  present  day  with  the  apostles  of  Christ. 

As  the  case  is  now  generally  presented,  there 
are  tivo  lines  of  descent  relied  upon  ;  or  rather,  in 
tracing  backwards,  the  line  has  two  branches — 
one  running  through  the  Papacy  up  to  the  apos- 
tles, through  the  first  bishops  of  Rome ;  and  the 
other  running  through  the  AngHcan  church,  as 
distinct  from  the  church  of  Eome,  and  connect- 
ing with  one  or  more  of  the  apostles,  who  are 
supposed  to  have  preached  the  gospel,  and  estab- 
lished chnrehes  in  the  island  of  Great  Britain. 

In  regard  to  the  first  of  these,  we  find  on  inquiry, 
that,  at  the  starting  point,  where  every  thing  ought 
to  be  perfectly  plain,  there  is  such  an  entire  want 
of  evidence  in  support  of  the  facts  alleged,  that 
we  are  thrown  at  once  into  a  state  of  inextricable 
uncertainty  and  doubt.  Prelatical  writers  them- 
selves are  not  agreed,  as  to  ivhich  of  the  apostles, 
was  the  head  of  the  succession  at  Rome.  Instead 
of  assigning  the  position  with  confidence  to  either 
one,  the  phraseology  generally  is,  "  St.  Peter,  or 
St.  Paul."     Here  is  the  language  of  hesitation  to 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  221 

begin  with  :  it  is  mere  guess-work,  as  the  phrase- 
ology sufficiently  shows.  Some,  indeed,  with  an 
air  of  greater  confidence,  leave  out  the  name  of 
Paul,  and  speak  of  Peter  alone,  and  without  qua- 
lification, as  having  b,een  the  apostolical  bishop  of 
Rome.  This  is  the  opinion  to  which  the  advo- 
cates of  the  succession  especially  incline.  But 
when  we  ask  for  the  evidence,  on  which  this  opin- 
ion is  based,  we  are  furnished  with  nothing  better 
than  the  most  uncertain  tradition.  The  chal- 
lenge has  often  been  given  to  the  papacy,  and  to 
all  others  who  claim  to  be  the  successors  of  Peter, 
as  bishop  of  Rome,  to  produce  any  proof  that  he 
ever  was  at  Rome  at  all — and  they  have  never 
done  it.  The  probability  is  that  he  never  was ; 
and  that  he  did  not  reside  permanently  in  Rome,  is 
as  certain  as  any  thing  can  be,  which  depends 
upon  circumstantial  evidence.  A  large  propor- 
tion of  the  book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  em- 
ployed in  giving  an  account  of  his  labors — men- 
tion is  made  of  him  in  different  places  ;  in  Jerusa- 
lem, Samaria,  Lydia,  Joppa,  Csesarea^  &c. — but 
not  a  word  is  said  of  him  in  connection  with 
Rome.  Paul,  in  writing  from  Rome,  never 
speaks  of  him — even  his  last  epistlil  to  Timothy, 
in  which  he  assured  him  that  the  time  of  his  de- 
parture was  at  hand,  though  he  sent  salutations 
from  all  the  brethren,  from  Eubulus,  Pudens,  Li- 
19* 


222  DISCOURSES  ON 

nus,  &c.,  he  makes  no  allusion  to  Peter.  It  is 
passing  strange,  if,  under  these  circumstances,  he 
could  have  been  the  resident  prelate  of  Rome. 

But,  supposing  the  alleged  fact  on  this  subject 
to  be  established  by  sufficient  evidence,  the  ques- 
tion arises,  who  were  Peter's  successors  in  the 
bishopric  of  Rome  ?  And  here,  when  Ave  collect 
and  compare  the  opinions  of  prelatical  writers, 
Ave  find  nothing  but  '  confusion  Avorse  confound- 
ed.' Dr.  Hook  and  others,  indeed,  Avill  read  off 
the  list,  as  if  all  Avere  light  and  certainty,  and  Avill 
say, — "  These  great  apostles  (meaning  Peter  and 
Paul,)  successively  ordained  Linus,  Cletus,  and 
Clement."  In  opposition  to  this,  hoAvever,  there 
are  quite  as  many,  Avho  affirm,  that  the  order  thus 
assiorned  3o  the  successors  is  all  a  mistake — that 
the  first  bishop  of  Rome,  after  the  apostles,  Avas 
not  Linus,  but  Clement — and  some  declare,  that 
Clement  and  Cletus  are  both  to  be  placed  before 
Linus.  Bishop  Pearson  thinks  he  has  shown, 
that  Linus  died  before  Peter  ;  and,  if  so,  he  could 
not  have  been  one  of  his  successors,  in  any  part 
of  the  line. — Again  Eusebuis,  Avho  is  relied  upon 
for  authority  that  Linus  was  the  first  bishop  of 
Rome,  declares  that  he  received  the  episcopate 
''  after  the  martyrdom  of  Paul  and  Peter."  And, 
if  this  Avas  the  case,  who  ordained  and  installed 
him  ?     If  Peter  and  Paul  Avere  dead,  when  the 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  223 

episcopate  was  conferred  upon  him,  of  course  he 
did  not  receive  it  from  either  of  them  ;  and  if  not, 
who  knows  that  the  powers  conferred  upon  him 
were  prelatical  powers?  Perhaps,  after  all,  he 
was  set  apart  to  his  work  by  some  body  of  hum- 
ble presbyters;  and,  in  that  event,  the  virtue  of 
the  succession  was  tainted  at  its  very  source. 

The  truth  is,  it  cannot  be  ascertained,  with  any 
thing  like  an  approach  to  certainty,  luho  was  the 
first  bishop  of  Rome.  And,  if  it  could,  there 
would  be  an  insurmountable  difficulty  still  re- 
maining ;  and  that  would  be,  to  prove  that  the 
bishop  of  Rome  who  succeeded  the  apostles  w^as 
the  bishop  of  a  diocese^  as  distinguished  from  the 
overseer  of  a  particular  church.  It  never  has 
been  shown,  and  it  never  can  be,  that  there  Avere 
more  churches  in  Rome  at  this  time  than  one. 
Lord  King,  to  whom  I  have  already  referred,  ex- 
presses himself  in  the  following  way, — "  How 
large  the  diocese  of  Rome  was,  may  be  conjec- 
tured by  that,  1.  All  people  thereof  could  meet  to- 
gether to  perform,  divine  service,  &c.  2.  In  this 
diocese,  there  was  but  one  church  or  meeting 
place  ;  for,  when  bishop  Anterus  died,  all  the 
brethren  met  together  in  the  churcJufo  choose  a 
successor."  This  opinion,  especially  as  coming 
from  a  man  of  real  learning  and  closel/ connected 
"wiih  the  hierarchy,  is  worthy  of  special  regard. 


224  DISCOURSES  ON 

To  say  the  least  of  it,  it  is  an  opinion  which  never 
can  be  refuted;  and  therefore,  even  granting  that 
Linus  succeeded  the  apostles  immediately,  it  re- 
mains to  be  shown,  that  the  powers  which  he  ex- 
ercised in  Rome  were  any  higher  than  those 
which  belong  to  the  pastor  of  a  particular  church. 
If  Lord  King  is  right  in  saying,  that,  when  a 
bishop  died,  "  all  thebrethren  met  together  in  the 
church  to  choose  a  successor,"  then  it  is  certain 
that  the  bishops  of  Rome,  at  that  time,  were  nothing 
more  than  parochial  ministers.  For  Avho  ever 
heard  of  ''all  the  brethren"  of  a  particular 
church  meeting  together  to  elect  a  prelatical  bish- 
op ? 

The  same  doubts  which  hang  over  the  question, 
who  was  the  first  bishop  of  Rome  ?  equally  attend 
all  investigations  as  to  the  second  or  third  link  in 
tlie  chain.  Dr.  Prideaux  says,  "there  is  no  cer- 
tainty to  be  had."  Even  Cabassute,  the  Popish 
historian,  says,  "itisat'ery  doubtful  question." 
Dr.  Calamy,  in  speaking  of  the  tables  of  succes- 
sion, declares  that  "  the  head  of  the  Nile  is  not 
more  obscure  than  the  first  part  of  these  tables." 
Stillingfleet  says,  it  "is  as  muddy  as  the  Tiber  it- 
self." And  Dr.  Comber,  in  arguing  with  the  de- 
fenders of  the  Papacy,  says, — "  Upon  the  whole 
matter,  there  is  no  certainty  who  was  bishop  of 
Rome  next  to  the  apostles,  and  therefore  the  Ro- 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  225 

manists  build  upon  an  ill  bottom^  when  they  lay- 
so  great  weight  upon  their  pe?'so?ial  succession. '''' 
Apply  this  to  the  succession  of  the  hierarchy,  to 
which  Dr.  Comber  himself  belonged,  and  the  re- 
mark will  have  equal  weight.  The  high  church 
system  and  the  Papacy  stand,  in  this  respect,  up- 
on the  same  ground.  They  build  alike  upon  an 
ill  bottom  ;  because  they  both  rely  upon  a  succes- 
sion, which  cannot  be  traced ;  and  which,  if  it 
could,  would  make  the  Prelate  of  one,  as  well  as 
the  Pope  of  the  other,  a  descendant  of  nothing 
higher  than  a  parochial  pastor. 

But  we  will  suppose,  for  argument,  that  every 
thing  in  regard  to  the  first  bishops  of  Rome  was 
just  as  the  advocates  of  prelacy  would  have  it — 
that  Rome,  with  its  dependencies,  was  a  diocese 
in  the  modem  sense — that  Linus  was  ordained  as 
bishop  of  this  diocese  by  Peter — that  what  he  re- 
ceived from  the  apostle  was  transmitted  to  others 
after  him  in  regular  order — and  that  this  succes- 
sion was  continued  without  interruption  for  centu- 
ries :  still,  there  are  numerous  places,  farther 
down  in  the  chain,  where,  beyond  a  doubt,  it  was 
broken.  To  a  few  of  these,  only,  will  our  limits 
permit  us  to  refer. 

We  cannot  proceed  intelligibly,  however,  with- 
out stopping  here,  for  a  moment,  to  set  aside  a 
position,  which  is  now  resorted  to  uniformly  by 


226  'discourses  on 

the  friends  of  the  succession,  to  aid  them  in  their 
passage  along  the  line  of  descent :  it  is,  that  the 
validity  of  ordinatio?i  is  7iot  affected  by  the  impie- 
ty, or  HERESY,  of  the  person  ordained — that,  ivhat- 
ever  he  may  be,  as  to  his  creed  or  moral  charac- 
ter, he  is  a  true  minister,  if  only  the  hands  of  a 
prelate  have  been  laid  upon  him,  and,  therefore, 
that  the  right  performance  of  the  ceremony  of  or- 
dination is  the  only  thing,  into  which  it  is  needful 
to  inquire,  in  tracing  the  line  of  succession.  This 
is  monstrous,  on  the  face  of  it ;  and,  for  obvious 
reasons,  cannot  be  admitted. 

We  take  an  extreme  case,  for  the  sake  of  illus- 
tration. Suppose  a  man  to  be  openly  and  avow- 
edly a7i  atheist.  Would  the  imposition  of  hands 
make  him  a  duly  authorised  and  commissioned 
minister  of  Christ  ?  Would  he,  remaining  an 
atheist,  be  the  actual  depository  of  '  apostolical 
grace,'  and  the  sure  means  of  communicating  it 
to  his  successors  ?  This  will  hardly  be  pretend- 
ed.— Suppose  another  individual  to  be  a  profess- 
ed believer  in  the  existence  of  God ;  but,  at  the 
same  time,  a  professed  unbeliever  in  the  divine 
origin  and  inspiration  of  the  Bible  ?  Would  or- 
dination invest  hi7n  with  the  ministerial  charac- 
ter, and  commission  ?  Is  there  any  such  differ- 
ence, between  an  atheist  and  a  deist,  that  the  im- 
position of  hands  could  do  for  the  latter,  what  it 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  227 

could  not  do  for  the  former  ? — Farther,  suppose 
a  man  to  receive  the  Bible  as  true,  but  to  deny 
altogether  the  divinity  and  atonement  of  Christ. 
Would  his  ordination  be  valid  ?  And,  in  conse- 
quence of  such  an  act,  could  he  be  the  means  of 
transmitting  a  true  ministry  to  succeeding  ages  ? 
In  other  words,  can  a  man  be  a  truly  commission- 
ed minister  of  Christ,  who  makes  it  his  business  to 
DENY  "the  Lord  that  bought  him,"  and  to  bring 
"  swift  destruction"  upon  himself,  and  upon  all 
who  embrace  the  doctrine  which  he  preaches  ? 
Once  more,  suppose  an  individual  to  be  a  nomi- 
nal believer  in  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
scripture ;  but  notoriously,  habitually,  and  without 
disguise,  abandoned  to  every  species  of  immorality 
and  profligacy.  "Would  a  canonical  ordination 
bring  him  into  the  ranks  of  the  true  ministry,  and 
render  him  a  safe  link  in  the  chain  of  succession  ? 
— Those  who  would  answer  these  questions  in  the 
affirmative,  may  as  well  be  left  to  themselves : 
they  have  embraced  a  form  of  delusion,  which  no 
human  argumentation  can  be  expected  to  re- 
move. 

It  may  not  be  amiss,  however,  to  suggest,  that 
ordinations  have  been  set  aside  as  invalid,  for 
reasons /ar  less  important  than  those  enumerated 
above ;  and  that  too,  by  authorities,  to  which 
high-churchmen  are  very  fond  of  appealing.     The 


228  DISCOURSES  ON 

Apostolical  Canons,  which  they  often  quote,  ex- 
pressly say, —  "If  any  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon, 
obtain  his  dignity  by  moneAj,  let  him,  and  him 
who  ordained  him,  be  deposed  and  ivholly  cut  off 
from  communion,  as  Simon  Magus  was  by  Peter." 
No.  22. — And  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  com- 
posed of  six  hundred  bishops,  which  sat  A.  D. 
451,  say, — "  If  any  bishop  ordain /or  mowe?/,  &c., 
let  him  that  is  ordained  be  never  the  better  for  his 
ordinatioii.^^  Can.  2.  These  decisions  are  in  ac- 
cordance with  scripture,  and  with  common 
sense.  No  prelate,  or  other  ordainer  on  earth, 
possesses  the  right  of  setting  apart  to  the  ministry 
of  Christ,  those  whose  faith  or  practice  is  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  plain  principles  of  the  word  of 
God.  All  such  acts  are  mdl  and  void^  from  the 
nature  of  the  case. 

With  this  principle  for  our  guide,  then,  we 
shall  find  but  little  difficulty  in  conducting  you  to 
places,  where  the  chain  of  succession  is  broken, 
and  the  succession  itself  irrecoverably  lost. 

To  say  nothing  of  earlier  and  less  vital  depar- 
tures from  ''  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints,"  Ave  meet,  early  in  the  fourth  century,  with 
an  extensive  defection  in  respect  to  the  divinity  of 
Christ :  I  refer  to  the  opinion  broached  by  Arius, 
a  presbyter  of  Alexandria ;  and  known  since,  in  the 
history  of  the  church,  under  the  name  of  Arian- 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  229 

ism.  He  maintained  that  Christ  was  a  mere 
creature;  and  this  opinion  prevailed  so  extensive- 
ly, as  to  lead  to  the  calling  of  the  council  of  Nice, 
at  which  it  was  considered  and  finally  condemn- 
ed, A.  D.  325.  During  the  prevalence  of  this 
heresy,  it  was  embraced  and  advocated  by  a 
large  number  of  the  existing  bishops  of  the  church. 
It  is  not  to  be  doubted,  that  many,  by  whom  the 
Son  of  God  was  thus  denied  and  dethroned,  were 
ordained  by  those  who  held  the  same  opinion. 
Here,  then,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  the 
succession  was  tainted,  at  many  important  points, 
at  the  same  time.  It  must  either  be  admitted, 
that  one  who  denies  Christ,  may  be  a  duly  com- 
missioned SERVANT  of  Christ,  or  that  all  the  ordi- 
nations performed  by  the  Arian  bishops,  were  no 
ordinations  at  all.  The  former  will  hardly  be 
contended  for  ;  and,  therefore,  the  latter  must  be 
held  to  be  the  truth  in  the  case. 

Look  at  this  fact,  then,  in  its  application  to  the 
succession.  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt, 
that  a  large  proportion  of  all  the  episcopal  ordina- 
tions existing  in  the  world,  are  such  as  derive 
their  virtue  from  the  Arian  line.  For  aught  that 
can  ever  be  proved  to  the  contrary,  his  Grace  of 
Canterbury,  and  of  course  all  the  bishops  of  this 
country,  who  have  received  their  episcopal  pow- 
ers from  him,  have  no  other  succession  than  that, 
20 


230  DISCOURSES  ON 

which  has  come  through  a  race  of  pretended  bish- 
ops, who  deposed  the  Son  of  God  from  his  me- 
diatorial throne,  and  denied,  at  the  same  time,  the 
divinity  and  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  a 
lineal  descent  from  such  predecessors  involves 
the  idea  of  succession  at  all,  it  is  a  succession,  not 
in  the  service  of  Christ,  but  in  the  work  of  dissem- 
inating error,  and  destroying  the  souls  of  men. 

Leaving  this  part  of  the  chain,  we  pass  now  to 
remark,  that,   unless  we   admit  those  to  be   duly 
commissioned  ministers  of  Christ,  whose  lives  are 
an  open  disgrace  to  his  religion,  and  who  live  to 
no    other  practical  end   than  to   retard  its  pro- 
gress,  it  will  be  impossible   to  carry  the  line  of 
succession,  untainted,   through  the  dark  ages  of 
THE  Papal  reign.     Let  Bishop  M'lllvaine  speak, 
in  regard  to  the  character  of  that  system,  which 
embosomed  the  succession  for  centuries.     Allud- 
ing to  the  Pope,    "  sitting  as  God,  in  the  temple 
of  God,  showing  himself  that  he  is  God,"  he  pro- 
ceeds to  say, — "  The  grand  scheme  of  that  singu- 
lar potentate  has  always  been,   while  graciously 
permitting  the  name  and  sliow  of  bishops  and  dio- 
ceses, to  reduce  all  into  abject  dependence  on  his 
infallible  will ;    he,  taking  the  place,  as  he  calls 
himself  the  alone  vicegerent  of  Christ,  the  invisi- 
ble head  ;    and  thus  seeking  to  reduce  all  office 
and  citizenship  in  the  universal  church,  into  one 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  231 

consolidated  mass  of  united  confusion."  *  * 
"  Such  is  the  scheme  of  Satan,  against  which  the 
protestant  ensign  of  our  parent  church  was  hfted 
up,  and  the  old  dioceses  of  oriental  Christendom, 
have  been  for  centuries  contending.  This  it  was, 
that  kindled  the  persecutions  of  the  English  Re- 
formation ;  and  burned  to  death  those  venerable 
bishops  of  Christ,  Cranmer,  and  Latimer,  and 
Ridley,  and  Hooper ;  not  to  mention  the  many 
confessors  of  lower  place,  but  of  equal  faith  and 
constancy.  Had  they  only  acknowledged  the  su- 
premacy of  the  Pope  they  might  Imve  died  in  their 
beds:' 

This,  it  must  be  confessed,  is  pretty  harsh 
treatment,  to  come  from  one  who  is  dependent  on 
the  Pope  for  his  apostolical  succession !  The 
bishops  and  dioceses,  it  seems,  which  were  made 
by  the  Papal  authority  from  age  to  age,  were  no- 
thing more  than  "the  7ia7ne  and  shoiv^' — the 
whole  scheme  was  nothing  else  than  "  the  scheme 
of  Satan'' — it  was  carried  out,  by  kindling  the 
fires  of  persecution,  and  burning  to  death  the  true 
servants  of  Christ — nay,  the  head  and  prime  mov- 
er in  this  operation,  not  only  claimed  to  be  the 
vicegerent  of  Christ,  but  appropriated  to  himself 
the  name  and  character  of  "God" — and  yet,  it  is 
through  him,  and  the  bishops  ordained  by  him 
and   his  legates,    that   the    succession   comes ! ! 


232  DISCOURSES    ON 

Every  bishop,  therefore,  in  this  country  and  in 
England,  must  trace  his  pedigree  through  bishops 
who  had  nothing  more  than  "  the  name,"  and 
through  a  system  of  ecclesiastical  tyranny  and 
persecution,  which  is  acknowledged  to  be  the 
^'antichrist''''  of  the  New  Testament. 

But  there  are  many  advocates  of  the  succes- 
sion, who  are  more  tender  of  the  reputation  of 
"  our  Lord  God,  the  Pope,'"  than  Bishop  M'lll- 
vaine.  And  this  renders  it  expedient  to  enlarge 
a  little,  upon  the  character  of  the  Papacy,  during 
the  dark  ages,  that  you  may  judge  how  far  a  va- 
lidly ordained  ministry  could  come,  through  such 
a  sink  of  iniquity,  and  of  innumerable  abomina- 
tions. The  difficulty  is  not  to  procure  testimony, 
but  to  know  what  to  select. 

The  opinion  of  the  English  church  of  the  refor- 
mation, may  be  learned  from  the  fact,  that  the 
litany  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  published 
during  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  contains  the  fol- 
lowing petition, — "  From  the  tyranny  of  the  bish- 
op of  Rome,  and  all  his  detestable  enormities,  good 
Lord  deliver  us."  Even  Baronius  himself,  who 
was  a  cardinal  in  the  Romish  church,  acknow- 
ledges that,  "  for  fifty  Popes  in  succession,  there 
was  not  a  pious  man."  And,  in  reference  to  the 
tenth  century  in  particular,  he  writes  in  the  fol- 
lowing language, — "  O  what  was  then  the  face  of 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  233 

the  holy  Roman  church !  how  filthy,  when  the 
vilest  and  most  powerful  harlots  ruled  in  the  court 
of  Rome !  by  whose  arbitrary  sway,  dioceses 
were  made  and  unmade,  bishops  were  consecrat- 
ed, and  (which  is  inexpressibly  horrible  to  be 
m.enXionQdi\)  false  popes ^  their  paramours^  were 
thrust  into  the  chair  of  St.  Peter."  *  ^  "  In 
these  elections,  no  mention  is  made  of  the  acts  of 
the  clergy,  either  by  their  choosing  the  pope  at 
the  time  of  his  election,  or  of  their  consent  after- 
Avard.  All  the  canons  were  suppressed  into  si- 
lence, the  voice  of  the  decrees  of  former  pontiffs 
was  not  allowed  to  be  heard,  ancient  traditions 
were  proscribed,  the  customs  formerly  practiced 
in  electing  the  pope,  with  the  sacred  rites  and 
pristine  usages,  were  all  extinguished.  In  this 
manner,  lust,  supported  by  secular  power,  excit- 
ed to  frenzy,  in  the  rage  for  domination,  rided  in 
all  thing- s.'^^^  How  an  uninterrupted  line  of  ca- 
nonical ordinations  could  run  through  such  scenes 
as  these,  it  is  for  the  advocates  of  the  succession 
to  show. 

Of  a  piece  with  the  testimony  of  Baronius,  is 
the  following  from  Episcopius, — "  It  is  a  matter 
of  historical  record,  that,  for  fifty  or  eighty  years 
together,  there  have  been  tivo  or  three  popes  at  the 

*  Quoted  by  R,  Southey  in  his  Vind.  Ecclesiae  Anglicanae,  p.  3S9. 
Lond.  1S26. 

20* 


234  DISCOURSES  ON 

same  time ;  one  of  them  denying  to  another  the 
very  name  of  christian^  reproaching  each  other 
with  the  appellations  of  heretic  and  antichrist^  and 
each  pronouncing  the  other  an  unlaivful  pope; 
that  one  cut  off  tivo  of  the  fingers  of  his  predeces- 
sor ;  dug-  lip  the  bodies  of  others  from  their  graves, 
a7id  having  insulted  their  ashes ^  ordered  their  bO' 
dies  to  be  cast  into  the  Tiber  ; — that,  sometimes, 
all  the  three  popes  together  were  condemned  and 
degraded,  by  a  general  council,  as  false  popes, 
heretics^  and  ungodly  loretches,  not  even  to  be 
reckoned  in  the  number  of  christians ;  and  that, 
nevertheless,  many  of  the  bishops  and  clergy  were 
ordained  by  these  false  popes."  What  effect 
could  ordination  by  these  monsters  have,  in  per- 
petuating a  true  succession  ?  And  yet  there  is 
not  a  bishop  now  living,  who  can  satisfy  himself 
upon  sufficient  grounds,  that  his  line  of  descent  is 
not  traceable  to  them. 

Father  Paul,  of  the  order  of  the  Servites — areli- 
aious  order  of  the  Romish  church — utters  his  con- 
fession,  in  regard  to  the  iniquity  and  disorders 
of  those  times,  in  the  following  language, — "Dur- 
ing the  space  of  eighty  years,  wherein  Italy 
labored  under  the  extremest  confusions,  as  Avell 
in  the  civil  government  as  ecclesiastical,  espe- 
cially in  the  papacy,  we  must  not  expect  to  find 
any   traces  or  form  of  good  government  in  the 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  235 

church,  but  a  mere  chaos  of  impieties,  and  a  gen- 
eral preparative  and  forerunner  of  the  miserable 
revolutions  and  disorders  which  followed.  Popes 
were  then  excommunicated  by  their  scccessors, 
and  their  acts  cursed  and  annulled  :  not  except- 
ing the  very  administration  of  the  sacrements. 
Six  popes  were  driven  out  and  dethroned,  by  those 
who  aspired  to  their  places ;  two  popes  put  to 
death,  and  Pope  Stephen  VITI.  w^ounded  in  the 
face,  with  so  much  deformity,  that  he  never  ap- 
peared in  public.  Theodora,  a  famous  courttsan^ 
by  the  interest  and  faction  she  had  then  in 
Rome,  got  her  professed  lover  chosen  pope,  who 
was  called  John  X.  And  John  XI.  was  chosen 
pope  at  the  age  of  twenty  years,  the  bastard  of 
another  pope,  dead  eighteen  years  before.  And 
in  short,  such  a  series  of  wild  disorders  gave  oc- 
casion to  historians  to  say,  that  those  times  pro- 
duced, not  popes,  but  monsters." 

We  need  not  pursue  these  horrid  details.  The 
Popes  of  these  times  are  immortalized  in  the  an- 
nals of  human  depravity.  The  tendency  of  their 
whole  lives  was  to  bring  the  religion  of  the  Bible 
into  contempt,  and  to  promote  infidelity  and 
crime.  And  to  suppose  that  any  form  of  ordina- 
tion by  man,  could  constitute  them  the  duly  com- 
missioned servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  an  outrage 
upon  common  sense,  as  well  as  destructive  of  all 


236  DISCOURSES  ON 

the  great  principles  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of 
revealed  religion.  Alas,  for  the  succession,  that 
derives  its  integrity  and  virtue  from  such  a 
source  I 

There  is  a  consciousness,  hov\^ever,  even  on 
the  part  of  its  warmest  advocates,  that,  in  public 
estimation,  the  doctrine  cannot  stand  upon  this 
ground.  And  hence  the  attempt,  which  is  now 
common,  to  trace  a  line  of  succession  through  the 
Anglican  Churchy  as  distinct  from  the  church  of 
Rome,  and  connecting  with  one  or  more  of  the 
Apostles,  who  are  supposed  to  have  been  the  first 
preachers  of  the  Gospel  in  the  island  of  Great 
Britain.  We  turn,  for  a  moment,  to  this  view  of 
the  subject;  and  we  think  you  will  agree  with 
us,  that  the  defective  links,  in  this  chain,  are  not 
only  many  in  number,  but  easily  detected. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  Roman  line,  there  is  an 
insuperable  difficulty  at  the  very  commencement. 
It  is  assumed,  that  the  succession  was  started  in 
England  by  the  apostles ;  but  this  is  a  mere  con- 
jecture, entirely  unsupported  by  proof.  The 
case  is  thus  stated  by  a  living  Bishop, — ''  The 
Gospel  was  early  cairied  to  that  island,  now 
known  as  Great  Britain.  It  is  generally  suppos- 
ed, that  St.  Paul  was  the  first  messenger  of  truth 
who  visited  it.  And  this  opinion  Avas  held  at  a 
very  early  period.      The  testimony  to  this   fact 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  237 

was  first  given  by  Clement  Romanus.  He  says, 
that  the  Apostle  Paul  'traveled  to  the  utmost 
bounds  of  the  West' — an  expression,  according 
to  Theodoret,  used  to  denote  the  British  Islands. 
Clement  gave  this  testimony  as  early  as  the  year 
70.  To  the  like  effect,  is  the  testimony  of  Je- 
rome and  Theodoret.  At  all  events,  the  proof  is 
most  ample  to  show,  that  the  Gospel  was  early 
introduced  into  those  Islands."  And,  after  pro- 
ceeding a  little  farther,  he  adds, — ''  the  succession 
was  carried  there  by  St.  Paul  and  continued,  as 
you  will  see,  uninterruptedly  in  the  church."^  I 
give  you  this  passage  at  length  :  because  it  con- 
tains all  the  evidence  on  this  point  which  is  al- 
leged to  exist ;  and  because  it  affords  a  curious 
specimen  of  the  strong  faith,  which  these  succes- 
sionists  can  exercise,  where  there  is  really  no  evi- 
dence to  support  it.  What  does  this  testimony 
amount  to,  when  viewed  in  its  most  favorable 
bearings  ?  It  consists  of  a  single  remark  by  Cle- 
ment Romanus  ;  and  that  remark  has  no  direct 
bearing  upon  the  subject.  To  make  it  applicable, 
it  must  be  assumed,  that  "  the  utmost  bounds  of 
the  West"  means  Great  Britain — and  to  assure 
us  that  this  is  the  true  meaning,  we  are  sent  again 
to  Theodoret.  He  lived  in  the  fifth  century — 
three  hundred  years  after   Clement  Avrote — and 

=*  Bishop  M'Coskry. 


238  DISCOURSES  ON 

his  opinion,  as  to  the  import  of  this  ambiguous 
phrase,  is  the  sum  total  of  all  the  proof  that  is 
given.  For  a  moment,  the  Bishop's  own  faith 
seems  to  waver,  and  he  says, — "  At  all  events, 
the  proof  is  most  ample  to  show^,  that  the  gospel 
v^as  introduced  early  into  those  Islands."  But, 
soon  recovering,  he  returns  to  his  first  position 
with  greater  confidence  than  ever  ;  instead  of  say- 
ing "  it  is  generally  supposed,''''  he  now  affirms 
positively, — "  the  succession  ivas  carried  there  by 
St.  Paulj^^  &c.  It  thus  appears,  that  in  the  la- 
boratory of  this  system,  what  was  a  mere  suppo- 
sition, can  be  transformed,  in  the  course  of  a  few 
lines,  into  a  matter  of  absolute  and  unqualified 
certainty. 

The  truth  is,  as  Stillingfleet  observes,  that,  "by 
the  loss  of  records,"  it  is  not  possible  to  ascertain 
when,  and  under  what  circumstances,  Christianity 
was  first  introduced  into  Britain.  The  line  of 
succession,  therefore,  when  traced  backward  in 
this  direction,  runs  into  a  region  of  darkness, 
where  there  is  no  certainty  to  be  had.  Nor 
would  it  help  the  cause  to  admit,  that  the  fact  was 
as  the  advocates  of  the  succession  would  have  it ; 
because  there  were  subsequent  occurrences  in 
Britain,  by  which  all  that  had  previously  existed 
of  Christianity  and  ecclesiastical  order,  was  swept 
away.     It  is  recorded,  that  in  the  time  of  the 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  289 

Dioclesian  persecution,  early  in  the  fourth  centu- 
ry, "the  christian  churches  were  levelled  with  the 
ground;  all  the  copies  of  the  scriptures,  Avhich 
could  any  where  be  found,  were  burnt  in  the  pub- 
lic streets,  and  the  priests  and  bishops  of  the 
Lord's  house  were  slaughtered,  together  with 
their  charges ;  so  that,  in  some  provinces,  not 
even  a  trace  of  Christianity  remained."*  There 
is  no  reason  to  believe,  that  at  the  close  of  this 
distressing  period,  there  was  an  individual  left  in 
England  by  whom  the  succession  could  have 
been  perpetuated. 

Again,  it  is  matter  of  authentic  history,  that 
the  Saxons,  Avho  were  enemies  of  Christianity,  en- 
tered Britain  about  the  middle  of  the  ^if/i  centu- 
tury,  and  established  idolatry  upon  its  ruins. 
They  destroyed  the  churches  which  remained,  or 
had  been  built,  after  the  persecution  under  Dio- 
clesian ;  and  the  priests  fled  for  safety  to  other 
countries.  After  this,  the  reign  of  heathenism 
continued  for  at  least  a  century  and  a  half;  so 
that,  here  again,  the  line  of  succession  was  cut 
off  effectually,  and  forever.  Beyond  this  wide 
and  dark  chasm,  the  present  Anglican  church 
cannot  trace  the  line  of  its  existence,  any  more 
than  the  line  of  its  apostolical  descent. 

After  this,  the  country  passed,  ecclesiastically, 

*  Churton. 


240  DISCOURSES  ON 

into  the  possession  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  through 
Augustine  and  Theodore.  Theodore,  ordained 
at  Rome,  by  Vitalian,  Avas  sent  over,  and  made 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  A.  D.  668.  Some  at- 
tempts, indeed,  had  been  made  to  revive  the  knov\^- 
ledge  of  Christianity  before  this,  by  Columba,  and 
others  ordained  by  him  and  his  assistants,  who 
are  mentioned  by  Bede  in  his  Church  History, 
who  wrote  about  A.  D.  731.  But  Theodore,  in- 
stead of  recognizing  any  of  the  existing  ministry 
as  validly  ordained,  began  anew,  and  ordered  all 
ecclesiastical  affairs  as  from  the  beginning.  It  is 
related  by  Bede,  that  he  "  reproved  Chadda  (one 
of  the  British  ecclesiastics,  Avho  had  been  ordain- 
ed by  three  others,)  for  that  he  Avas  not  rightly 
consecrated  ;  and  he  did  himself  supply,  and  ren- 
der complete,  his  consecration  after  the  right  and 
due  catholic  manner J^^  From  Theodore  down- 
ward, till  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  no  less 
than  seventeen  Archbishops  of  Canterbury,  and 
tivelve  Archbishops  of  York,  were  ordained  im- 
mediately by  the  Pope,  or  his  legates.  This  may 
be  seen  by  any  one,  who  chooses  to  consult  Bish- 
op Godwin's  Lives  of  the  English  Bishops.  And, 
when  we  consider  how  largely  the  incumbents  of 
these  two  sees,  were  concerned  in  the  consecra- 
tion of  all  the  other  English  prelates,  what  be- 

*  Book  iii.  chap.  28. 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  241 

comes  of  the  Anglican  church,  as  distinct  ixom. 
that  of  Rome  ?  Was  there  ever  such  an  un- 
founded and  senseless  plea,  set  up  in  defence  of 
any  cause  ?  As  well  might  it  be  argued,  that 
the  rivers,  when  absorbed  by  the  ocean,  are  dis- 
tinct from  the  sea ! 

Not  only  did  the  archbishops,  above  mentioned, 
derive  their  ordination  immediately  from  Rome  ; 
but,  in  some  cases,  from  those  who  Avere  mere 
pretenders  to  the  popedom,  or,  if  popes,  at  all,  of 
the  very  blackest  and  most  abandoned  character. 
Pope  Formosus,  as  appears  from  the  authority 
above  quoted,  ordained  Plegmund  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  in  891.  And  of  this  occupant  of  the 
chair  of  St.  Peter,  it  is  recorded,  that  he  obtained 
his  place  by  perjury ;  and,  in  general,  that  his 
character  and  doings  were  so  enormous,  that  he 
was  regarded  as  no  pope,  by  those  who  came  af- 
ter him.  Stephen  VI.,  his  immediate  successor, 
at  the  head  of  his  council,  declared  the  ordina- 
tions he  administered  void,  and  caused  all  those 
to  be  reordained  whom  he  had  ordered.  Ser- 
gius  III.  renewed  all  that  Stephen  had  done 
against  Formosus,  and  caused  his  ordinations  to 
be  declared  7iull  over  again^^  Now  Plegmund, 
who  received  his  '  apostolical  grace'  from  this 
monster,  was  the  chief  ordainer  of  the  bisbops   of 

*  Courayer,  as  cited  by  Powell,  p.  243. 
21 


242  DISCOURSES     ON 

England  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  !  In  what  a 
predicament  does  this  place  the  boasted  succes- 
sion !  The  result  is,  that  the  present  bishops  of 
this  country  are  dependent  for  their  ordination, 
in  all  probability,  upon  the  supposed  episcopal 
character  of  an  unscrupulous  and  profligate  pope, 
whose  oflacial  acts  were  declared  null  and  void  by 
the  very  church  to  which  he  belonged  ! 

Take  another  case.  John  Peckham  was  or- 
dained Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  A.  D.  1278,  by 
Pope  Nicholas  III.  This  pope  is  known  in  his- 
tory, emphatically,  as  a  robber.  Platina  says, — 
"  he  took  aAvay,  by  violence,  the  castles  of  cer- 
tain noble  Romans,  and  gave  them  to  his  own 
relatives."  And  Bishop  Godwin  says,  that  Peck- 
ham  himself  "had  hardly  arrived  in  England, 
when  the  pope  his  creator  (for  so  he  was  pleased 
to  call  him)  required  a  large  sum  of  money  from 
him,  viz.  four  thousand  marks y  Peckham's  an- 
swer, is  given  in  these  words — "  Behold  thou 
hast  created  me,  and  forasmuch  as  it  is  natural  for 
a  creature  to  desire  to  be  perfected  by  his  creator^ 
so,  in  my  distress,  I  desire  to  be  refreshed  by 
your  Holiness.  Truly  a  writ  of  execution,  horri- 
ble to  be  seen,  and  terrible  to  be  heard,  has  lately 
reached  me,  declaring,  that  except  I  answer  to  it 
within  a  month  after  the  feast  of  St.  Michael,  by 
paying  into  the  hands  of  the  merchants  of  Lucca 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  243 

the  sum  of  four  thousand  marks,  according  to  my 
bargain  with  the  court  of  Rome,  I  am  then  to  be 
excommunicated,  and  am  to  be  cursed,  in  my  own 
and  other  principal  churches,  with  bell,  book,  and 
candles^  Whether  his  Hohness,  who  issued  the 
''  writ"  in  this  case,  or  his  pliant  "  creature"  who 
had  to  meet  its  exactions  according  to  his  "  bar- 
gain," was  farthest  from  the  apostolical  model, 
we  do  not  stop  to  inquire.  It  is  enough  to  know, 
that  they  both  stand  as  essential  links  in  the  chain 
of  the  vaunted  succession.  And,  if  ''no  one  can 
bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean,"  it  is  easy 
to  determine  of  what  value  such  a  succession 
must  be. 

We  refer  you,  only,  to  one  additional  case, 
among  the  many  of  a  similar  kind,  which  might 
be  cited. — Henry  Chichley  was  ordained  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  by  Pope  Gregory  XII.,  A. 
D.  1414.  Between  the  ordainer  and  the  ordained, 
in  this  case,  there  is  little  to  choose.  Gregory 
was  one  of  three  pretenders  to  the  papal  chair ; 
and,  before  this  ordination  was  performed,  had 
been  condemned  in  council.  Subsequently,  at 
the  council  of  Constance,  all  his  acts  were  for- 
mally disanmdled — he  was  set  aside  as  being 
neither  pope,  nor  bishop.  And  had  this  no  effect, 
in  tainting  the  line  of  succession  ?  Chichley  con- 
tinued for  twenty-nine  years  to  ordain  the  bishops, 


244  DISCOURSES  ON 

and  otiier  clergy,  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  and 
has  thus  perpetuated  a  succession,  which  must,  of 
course,  be  as  uncanonical,  and  worthless,  as  the 
ordination  which  he  himself  received. 

But  I  need  not  weary  you  with  these  details. 
The  conclusion  is  as  inevitable  as  evidence  can 
make  it,  that  all  the  episcopal  ordinations  of 
England — and  of  this  country  also,  so  far  as  they 
are  connected  with  the  English  line — are  streams 
from  the  impure  fountains  of  Rome.  On  canon- 
ical principles,  they  are  vitiated  by  irregularity 
in  a  hundred  places  ;  and  such  was  the  mon- 
strous character  of  many  of  the  ordainers,  who 
form  the  line,  that  morahty,  religion,  and  com- 
mon sense,  all  revolt  at  the  idea  of  their  being  the 
duly  commissioned  servants  of  Christ,  and  em- 
powered to  perpetuate  a  ministry  according  to 
his  will.  So  that,  instead  of  finding  no  flaws  in 
the  line  of  descent,  the  difficulty  is  to  turn  in  any 
direction  where  they  are  not  to  be  seen. 

What  has  been  said,  thus  far,  has  respect  of 
course  to  the  state  of  things  in  England,  anterior 
to  the  Reformation.  A  few  references  to  histori- 
cal facts  will  show,  that,  even  supposing  the  An- 
glican chain  to  have  been  perfect  until  then,  it  has 
since  been  broken  in  diiferent  places. 

It  follows  from  what  has  been  said,  that  no  or- 
dinations existed,    Avhen   the  Reformation  com- 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  245 

menced,  which  did  not  derive  their  validity  from 
the  court  of  Rome.  Now  this  com't  had  the 
power  of  undoing  what  was  done  by  itself — if  it 
could  confer  sacred  orders,  it  could  also  recall 
them — it  could  take  back  its  own  gifts.  There  is 
no  denying  the  propriety  of  this,  as  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal rule.  All  denominations  of  christians  agree, 
that  the  same  body  which  may  commission  an  in- 
dividual to  preach  the  gospel,  may  also  withdraw 
this  commission,  for  what  may  seem  to  them  to 
be  sufficient  reasons.  What  then  became  of  the 
succession,  when  Rome  Avithdrew  from  the  An- 
glican Church  of  the  reformation  all  the  ordina- 
tions she  had  given — excommunicating  her  bish- 
ops and  other  clergy — and  thereby  recalling  all 
the  '  apostolical  grace'  which  she  had  imparted  ? 
Here,  it  must  be  confessed,  on  all  fair  principles 
of  reasoning,  the  chain  was  not  only  injured,  but 
so  broken,  that  it  never  can  be  repaired. 

Passing  from  this  consideration,  we  come  to 
the  strange  proceedings,  in  the  time  of  Henry 
VIH.  In  the  plentitude  of  his  power,  and  in  the 
character  of  another  pope,  he  broke  up  all  other 
lines  of  succession,  and  started  a  new  one  com- 
mencing with  himself.  He  ordained,  that,  ''arch- 
bishops, bishops,  arch-deacons,  and  other  ecclesi- 
astical persons,  have  no  manner  of  jurisdiction  ec- 
clesiastical, but  by,  under,  and  from,  his  royal 
21* 


246  DISCOURSES     ON 

Majesty  ;  and  that  his  Majesty  is  the  only  supreme 
head  of  the  church  of  England  and  Ireland ;  to 
whom,  BY  HOLY  SCRIPTURE,  all  authority  and  pow- 
er is  wholly  given,  to  hear  and  determine  all  man- 
ner of  causes  ecclesiastical,  and  to  correct  all 
manner  of  heresies,  errors,  vices,  and  sins  what- 
ever, and  to  all  such  persons  as  his  majesty  shall 
appoint  thereto."  A  higher  specimen  of  effronte- 
ry and  daring  impiety,  is  hardly  to  be  found  on 
the  page  of  universal  history.  And  yet,  there  is 
no  line  of  episcopal  ordinations,  in  this  country 
or  in  England,  which  is  not  tainted  by  this  act. 
They  are  all  derived  from  the  ordaining  power 
of  those,  who,  in  derogation  of  the  supremacy  of 
Jesus  Christ,  took  out  their  commissions  from  an 
ambitious  and  impious  king  :  which  has  led  to  the 
remark,  that,  "  thus  it  happens  for  the  everlasting 
honor  and  consolation  of  all  high-churchmen, 
that  Henry  VIII.,  and  his  delegates  or  lieutenants 
in  the  episcopal  office,  stand  in  the  line  of  succes- 
sion between  them  and  the  apostles." 

With  these  facts  before  us,  we  could  afford  to 
pass  by  the  invalidity  of  the  ordination  of  Arch- 
bishop Parker^  which  occurred  during  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth.  But  truth  requires,  that  the  state- 
ment should  be  reiterated,  in  the  face  of  all  the 
attempts  which  are  made  to  deny  or  evade  it,  that 
no  sufficient  proof  has  ever  been  produced,  that 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  247 

his  ordination  was  canonical.  He  was  consecra- 
ted hy  four  bishops,  who  received  their  appoint- 
ment from  Edward  VI.,  after  the  fashion  of  Hen- 
ry VIH.  Their  names  were  Barlow,  Scory,  Co- 
verdale,  and  Hodgkins.  They  had  all  been  de- 
posed, during  the  reign  of  Mary,  and  were  never 
restored.  Barlow  was  the  consecrator ;  and,  in 
addition  to  the  fact  of  his  deposition,  it  was  seri- 
ously doubted  at  the  time,  whether  he  himself  had 
ever  been  consecrated  at  all — the  registry,  in  the 
archives  of  the  archbishop,  containing  no  mention 
of  his  name.  What  casts  a  permanent  shade  of 
suspicion  upon  the  whole  matter,  is,  that  it  was 
afterwards  brought  before  Parliament,  and  an  act 
was  passed,  confirming  its  validity,  and  that  of 
all  the  ordinations  which  were  dependent  upon  it. 
That  the  whole  Anglican  chain  hangs  upon  this 
ordination,  will  not  be  denied.  And  this  pre- 
sents another  point,  at  which  the  succession  was 
lost,  under  such  circumstances,  that  it  could  nev- 
er be  recovered. 

I  shall  detain  you  farther,  with  only  a  few  re- 
marks on  the  succession,  as  connected  with  the 
episcopacy  of  our  own  country.  Bishop  Seabu- 
ry  was  ordained  in  Scotland  in  1784  ;  and  serious 
doubts  were  entertained  then,  and  afterwards,  as 
to  the  validity  of  his  consecration — upon  the 
ground  that  the  Scottish  bishops  themselves  had 


248  DISCOURSES  ON 

not  been  canonically  ordained.  These  doubts 
were  not  confined  to  the  opponents,  but  Avere  en- 
tertained equally  by  the  friends  of  episcopacy. 
They  were  referred  to  by  Bishop  White,  and  as- 
signed by  him  as  a  reason  for  seeking  ordination 
in  England,  instead  of  Scotland.  And,  if  these 
doubts  Avere  well  founded,  no  inconsiderable  por- 
tion of  the  Anglo-American  church  have  lost  the 
succession. 

Besides  Seabury,  there  were  three  American 
prelates  consecrated  abroad — White,  Madison, 
and  Prevoost.  And  the  circumstances  under 
which  they  were  admitted  to  a  place  in  the  Eng- 
lish succession,  if  well  considered,  would  be 
enough  to  consign  this  whole  matter  of  lineal  de- 
scent from  the  apostles,  to  the  ridicule  and  con- 
tempt of  all  reflecting  and  candid  minds.  The 
Bishops  of  England,  with  all  their  apostohcal  pre- 
rogatives, did  not  regard  themselves  as  possessing 
the  power,  independently,  of  perpetuating  a  min- 
istry in  America.  The  authority  must,  and  did 
come,  from  another  source.  They  could  neither 
whisper  a  Avord  of  encouragement  to  these  appli- 
cants, nor  move  a  finger  towards  their  ordination, 
tmtil  leave  was  granted^  by  "the  King's  most  ex- 
cellent Majesty,  by  and  Avith  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  Parliament" — until  authority  Avas  formally 
given,  by    ^Hlie  royal  mandate  under  the  great 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  249 

seal!^^  The  Act,  permitting  the  Bishops  to  pro- 
ceed to  these  consecrations,  expressly  recites, 
that  "no  person  shall  be  consecrated  Bishop,  in 
the  manner  herein  provided,  nntil  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  or  the  Archbishop  of  York,  for  the 
time  being,  shall  have  first  applied  for  and  obtain- 
ed his  Majesty- s  license,  by  warrant  nnder  hisroyal 
signet  and  sign  manual,  empowering  him  to  pro- 
ceed to  such  consecration,"  &c.  Nor  was  even 
his  Majesty  permitted  to  grant  leave,  excepting 
under  the  following  restrictions — ^^  Provided  also, 
and  it  is  hereby  declared,  that  no  person  or  per- 
sons, consecrated  to  the  office  of  a  Bishop  in  the 
manner  aforesaid,  nor  any  person  or  persons  de- 
riving their  consecration  from,  or  under,  any 
Bishop  so  consecrated,  nor  any  person  or  persons 
admitted  to  the  order  of  a  deacon  or  priest  by  any 
bishop  or  bishops  so  consecrated,  or  by  the  siicces- 
sor  or  successors  of  any  Bishop  or  Bishops  so  con- 
secrated, shall  be  thereby  enabled  to  exercise  his 
or  their  respective  office  or  offices  within  his  Ma- 
jesty's DOMINIONS."  A  pretty  specimen  of  inves- 
titure with  apostolical  powers  I  A  strange  con- 
dition to  be  imposed,  in  constituting  successors  to 
those  who  were  empowered  to  ''go  into  all  the 
WORLD,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature  !^^ 
In  this  original  commission,  "  his  Majesty^ s  do- 
minions''^    are    not    contemplated    as    forbidden 


250  DISCOURSES  ON 

ground.  It  looks  to  no  geographical  limits,  or 
artificial  distinctions  :  it  makes  those  who  receive 
it,  messengers  of  the  gospel  to  their  fellow  men  : 
and,  wherever  there  are  men,  in  ignorance  and 
sin,  to  be  enlightened  and  saved,  there  is  the 
sphere  of  duty  and  labor  to  which  they  are  called, 
Any  attempt  therefore  to  narrow  the  ground  spe- 
cified in  the  commission,  is  a  virtual  abrogation 
of  the  commission  itself — it  converts  it  into  anoth- 
er, and  a  different  thing — it  is  no  apostolical  com- 
mission at  all.  And  yet,  it  is  on  such  a  commis- 
.sion,  that  the  American  succession  depends  for  its 
integrity  and  value.  It  runs  back  to  the  reign 
and  ParHament  of  George  III. ;  and  the  link, 
which  connects  it  with  the  Anglican  line,  is  a  mu- 
tilated and  spurious  ordination — an  ordination, 
encumbered  by  an  unauthorised  and  anti-scriptural 
restraint — and  performed  avowedly,  not  on  the 
principles  of  the  word  of  God,  but  in  obedience 
to  the  enactments  of  civil  law. 

We  add,  as  another  circumstance  which  is 
worthy  of  notice  in  this  connection,  that  in  the 
judgment  of  many  of  the  ardent  friends  of  prelacy 
themselves,  the  succession  in  this  country  was  es- 
sentially vitiated,  in  the  ordinations  of  Bishop 
Hohart  and  Bishop  Griswold.  Certain  words, 
in  the  form  of  ordination,  regarded  by  many  as 
essential,  were   omitted,  in  the  performance   of 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  251 

the  ceremony.  And  there  are  many  still  livingj 
who  remember  the  controversy  which  ensued. 
It  was  kept  up  for  a  time  with  warmth,  not  only 
in  conversation,  but  also  through  the  medium  of 
the  press.  And  the  following  is  an  extract  from 
one  of  the  pamphlets  which  were  published  dur- 
ing its  progress — "  Suppose,  then,  at  some  future 
period,  Avhen  the  heat  of  passion  is  allayed,  when 
calm  reflection  is  suffered  to  be  called  into  exer- 
cise, that  then  it  shall  be  found  and  acknowledg- 
ed, that  the  considerations  here  advanced  have 
weight,  and  that  the  consecration  is  attended  with 
an  essential  defect :  what  will  then  be  the  state 
of  our  church  ?  Oiw  priesthood  invalid,  ovr  suc- 
cession LOST  ;  numbers,  under  a  shoiu  of  ordina- 
tion, ministering  without  authority ;  the  evil  so 
extended  as  to  be  beyond  the  power  of  correc- 
tion."— ''  For  myself,  I  am  seriously  and  consci- 
entiously persuaded,  that  the  omission  of  the  so- 
lemn words  is  material,  that  it  is  essential,  that  it 
renders  the  whole  form  besides  an  utter  nulli- 
ty."* What  the  omitted  words,  in  the  case  here 
referred  to,  were,  we  are  not  informed.  We  can 
easily  believe,  hoAvever,  that  if  the  transmission 
of  a  true  ministry  depends  essentially  on  the  im- 
position of  certain  hands,  it  may  also  depend  on 
the  use  of  certain  forms  of  expression.     The  trans- 

*  Quoted  by  Smyth,  p.  220. 


252  DISCOURSES  ON 

mitting  agency,  according  to  this  doctrine,  is,  at 
best,  but  an  outward  form — it  is  a  physical  opera- 
tion, consisting  of  certain  movements  of  the 
hands  and  lips — and  if  the  transaction  cannot  be 
valid,  without  the  right  movement  of  the  former, 
why  may  it  not  be  essentially  vitiated,  through 
the  failure  of  a  right  movement  in  respect  to  the 
latter.  On  the  principles  of  this  system  itself, 
therefore,  there  can  be  no  certainty,  that  all  the 
clergy  ordained  by  Bishops  Hobart  and  Griswold 
are  not  mere  laymen — officiating  without  authori- 
ty— destitute  of  '  apostolical  grace' — and  worthy 
only  to  be  numbered  among  the  "  non-episcopal 
sects,"  with  whom  there  ought  to  be  "  no  com- 
munion"! 

Having  submitted  these  details  to  your  conside- 
ration, I  leave  it  to  yourselves  to  judge,  how  far 
it  is  true,  that  an  unbroken  series  of  valid  ordina- 
tions have  connected  the  prelatical  bishops  of  the 
present  day  with  the  apostles  of  Christ — that 
'•^  every  link  in  the  chain  is  knoivn,  from  St.  Pe- 
ter" downward — that  the  continuity  and  perfec- 
tion of  this  chain  are  "  too  notorious  to  7'equire 
proofs — that  there  is  not  ''  a  flaw  in  the  line  of 
descent" — that  there  is  not  a  bishop,  priest,  or 
deacon,  ivho  cannot^  if  he  pleases,  trace  his  oivn 
spiritual  descent  from  St.  Peter,  or  St.  Paul — in 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  253 

short,  that  the  whole  matter  "  Z5  evident  to  every 
oneioho  chooses  to  examine  it.'''' 

To  account  for  such  declarations  as  these,  in 
view  of  the  facts  in  the  case,  we  confess  to  be  one 
of  the  most  difficult  things  connected  with  this 
whole  discussion.  On  the  one  hand,  we  are  not 
willing  to  doubt  the  sincerity  of  those  who  utter 
them  ;  and,  on  the  other,  we  find  it  difficult  to  see 
how  the  innumerable  facts,  which  have  a  contra- 
ry bearing,  can  be  set  aside,  even  in  the  judgment 
of  those  minds  which  are  warped  by  prejudice. 
It  must  be,  either  that  these  unqualified  assertions 
are  made  ivithout  examination — or,  that  there  is 
something  in  the  spirit  of  this  system,  which  so 
distorts  the  mental  vision  of  those  who  yield 
themselves  to  its  influence,  that  they  can  see  only 
in  one  direction.  Assuredly,  the  human  mind 
has  never  been  imposed  upon,  by  a  more  chime- 
rical and  baseless  hypothesis.  It  stands  out  in 
the  light  of  history,  without  a  single  consideration 
to  jnstify,  or  support  it.  And  we  marvel,  with 
increasing  wonder,  that  any  who  have  arrived  at 
years  of  discretion,  and  pretend  to  think  and  in- 
quire for  themselves,  are  willing  to  be  numbered 
among  its  advocates  or  friends. 
22 


DISCOURSE  VIII. 


THE    TRUE    SUCCESSION. 


Matt,  xxviii.  20.    And  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world. 

There  is  no  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  fact, 
that  this  passage  lays  the  foundation  for  our  be- 
lief in  the  perpetuity  of  the  christian  ministry. 
It  looks  forward,  expressly,  to  "  the  end  of  the 
world" — it  guarantees  the  presence  of  the  Head 
of  the  church  to  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed — 
and  as  they,  personally,  were  soon  to  ''  rest  from 
their  labors,"  the  unavoidable  inference  is,  that 
they  were  to  have  successors,  and  that  the  line  of 
this  succession  was  never  to  run  out,  while  the 
world  should  stand. 

The  only  question,  then,  as  connected  with 
this  discussion,  on  which  a  discrepancy  of  views 
can  be  supposed  to  exist,  is  the  question  which 
relates  to  the  nature  of  this  succession.      The 


256  DISCOURSES  ON 

view  contended  for  by  the  advocates  of  high- 
church  episcopacy  is,  that  this  succession  is  re- 
alized, in  an  uninterrupted  line  of  prelatical  bish- 
ops— that  the  christian  ministry  consists  essentially 
of  three  orders — that  the  his^hest  order  alone  have 
the  power  to  ordain — and  that  this  order,  as  per- 
petuated by  an  unbroken  series  of  valid  ordina- 
tions, is  the  particular  line  of  descent  in  the  minis- 
try, which  the  Saviour  anticipated,  and  to  which 
he  assigned  the  promise  contained  in  the  text. 

To  undermine  the  foundation  of  this  scheme 
has  been  the  object  of  what  we  have  said,  in  the 
preceding  discourses.  Our  argument  has  been, 
that  there  is  no  starting-place  in  scripture,  for 
such  a  line  of  ministerial  succession  as  that  which 
this  system  contemplates — and  that,  if  there  were, 
it  is  a  line  that  cannot  be  traced.  Neither  the 
Bible,  nor  the  early  Fathers,  know  of  any  such 
ofhcer,  in  connection  with  the  church  of  Christ, 
as  a  prelatical  bishop.  This  office,  as  well  as  the 
offices  of  Archbishop,  Patriarch,  and  Pope,  was 
the  invention  of  a  later  age:  it  is  a  human 
invention,  and  not  a  divine  institution.  But, 
supposing  it  otherwise,  it  is  impossible  to  estabhsh 
the  fact,  that  an  unbroken  series  of  valid  ordina- 
tions has  descended  from  the  apostles  to  the  pre- 
latical bishops  of  the  present  day :  the  chain,  in- 
stead of  being  perfect,  is  broken  in  a  multitude  of 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  257 

places.  This,  therefore,  cannot  be  the  succession 
which  Christ  had  in  view,  and  to  which  he  gave 
the  promise  of  his  presence  till  the  end  of  time. 

Having  thus  denied  both  the  doctrine  and  the 
fact  of  a  prelatical  succession,  and  having  admit- 
ted, at  the  same  time,  that  the  Saviour  did  con- 
template a  succession  of  some  sort ;  we  acknow- 
ledge the  obhgation  Avhich  lies  upon  us  to  show 
what  it  ivas. — And  to  this  work,  we  address  our- 
selves in  the  present  discourse. 

What,  then,  is  the  nature  of  that  succession, 
which  the  ascending  Saviour  had  in  view,  when 
he  said  to  his  apostles, — "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  al- 
ways, even  unto  the  end  of  the  world"? 

If  we  judge  rightly,  the  meaning  of  this  pro- 
mise is  clearly  determined,  by  the  connection  in 
which  it  stands.  It  was  addressed  to  the  apos- 
tles, in  connection  with  a  distinct  definition  of  the 
work^  in  the  performance  of  which  they  were  to 
expect  its  fulfillment.  They  were  commanded 
to  "go  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost";  in  other  words,  they  were  to 
preach  the  gospel,  and  to  baptize  those  who 
should  believe,  and  embrace  it,  in  the  name  of 
the  Trinity.  It  was  in  doing  this,  that  he  promis- 
ed to  be  with  them ;  He  gave  them  no  promise 
extending  to  any  thing  else.  And  this  considera- 
22* 


258  DISCOURSES  ON 

tion  inevitably  and  effectually  sets  aside  all  popes, 
patriarchs,  archbishops,  bishops,  priests,  and  dea- 
cons, who  are  not  actively  engaged,  either  direct- 
ly or  indirectly,  in  preaching  the  gospel,  as  their 
main  business.  Instead  of  being  the  only  succes- 
sors of  the  apostles,  they  are  no  successors  at  all ; 
because  they  are  not  engaged  in  the  luoj'k,  to 
which  the  succession  relates.  Nothing  can  be 
more  evident  than  this  ;  and  yet  nothing  more  is 
needed,  to  overturn  the  foundations  of  all  the 
hierarchies  that  have  ever  existed.  Bishop  Jew- 
ell says, — "These  nine  hundred  years,  since  Gre- 
gory, the  first  of  that  name,  it  can  hardly  be  found, 
that  ever  any  bishoj)  of  Rome  was  seen  in  a  pul- 
pit."— "  Christ  said  unto  Peter,  Lovest  thou  me  ? 
Feed  my  sheep,  feed  my  lambs,  feed  my  flock. 
But  our  great  clerks,  our  popes,  our  cardinals,  our 
bishops,  would  seldom,  or  never,  make  a  sermon. ^^ 
The  same  remark  will  apply  to  the  multitudes, 
in  connection  with  the  Anglican  hierarchy  now, 
who  are  ministers  of  Christ  merely  in  name — who 
live  on  the  emoluments  of  their  office,  without 
performing  its  duties ;  or  who  preach  the  gospel 
to  their  charges,  by  proxy,  while  they  themselves 
are  living  abroad,  in  idleness  and  self-indulgence. 
To  say  that  Clirist  has  promised  to  be  with  such 
ministers  as  these,  is  to  pervert  the  obvious  mean- 
ing of  his  own  language.     They  were  not  in  his 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  259 

eye,  when  he  gave  the  final  commission ;  and  any 
attempt  to  assign  them  a  place,  in  that  succession 
which  he  had  in  view,  is  as  contrary  to  scripture, 
as  it  is  absurd  in  itself. 

With  this  remark  for  our  guide,  then,  we  pro- 
pose to  recapitulate  the  false  principles^  on  Avhich 
the  prelatical  succession  depends  ;  and  to  exhibit, 
in  opposition  to  these,  as  we  proceed,  the  main 
principles  which  define  and  distinguish  the  true 

SUCCESSION. 

1.  The  doctrine  of  succession  which  we  have 
been  considering  in  these  discourses,  depends  for 
its  support,  upon  the  fundamentally  erroneous  po- 
sition, that  the  ministerial  character  and  office  are 
'perpetuated  by  a  mere  external  ceremony — by 
imposition  of  hands,  performed  by  a  prelatical 
bishop,  and  accompanied  by  the  use  of  certain 
words  which  he  is  supposed  to  utter.  Let  the 
fact  be  ascertained,  that  such  a  ceremony  has 
been  performed  by  such  an  individual — we  are, 
then,  supposed  to  know,  with  infallible  certainty, 
that  another  genuine  and  perfect  link  has  been 
added  to  the  chain,  which  connects,  at  the  supe- 
rior end,  with  the  apostles  of  Christ. — Now  this, 
we  afiirm,  is  altogether  an  anti-scriptural,  irra- 
tional, and  popish  doctrine  :  it  exalts  an  outward 
ceremony  to  a  degree  of  importance,  which  is 
never  assigned  to  it  in  scripture ;  and  shifts  the 


260  DISCOURSES  ON 

succession  in  the  ministry,  from  its  true  and 
proper  ground,  to  that,  on  which  the  sacred  wri- 
ters never  supposed  it  to  rest. 

We  have  ah'eady  shown,  that,  however  impor- 
tant the  ceremony  of  ordination  may  be  to  the 
regulation  of  the  ministry,  it  is  no  where  repre- 
sented in  scripture,  as  that  which  confers  the  min^ 
isterial  character .  This  character,  in  all  its  essen- 
tial features,  is  described  as  consisting  of  things 
which  lie  back  of  ordination.  Ordination  is  the 
act  of  induction  to  the  ministerial  office  ;  but,  be- 
fore this  act  can  be  justified,  there  must  be  evidence 
that  the  substantial  qualifications  are  already  pre- 
sent. In  itself,  it  produces  no  change  in  the  indi- 
vidual on  Avhom  it  is  performed — it  procures  no 
alteration  in  his  mental  or  moral  character — it 
makes  no  addition  to  his  knowledge,  piety,  pru- 
dence, or  aptness  to  teach;  but  is  a  mere  visible 
and  public  inauguration,  which  is  grounded  upon 
the  belief,  that  he  is  one,  to  whom  it  is  proper 
that  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  this  office 
should  be  committed. 

We  deny,  therefore,  that  the  act  of  ordination 
is  sufficient  of  itself,  under  any  circumstances,  to 
determine  who  are,  or  who  are  not,  the  true  min- 
isters of  Christ.  And  in  opposition  to  this,  we 
cow  specify  some  things  which  do  characterize 
the    ministerial  character,   and  which   therefore 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  261 

distinguish   the   true   succession   wherever    it  is 
found. 

As  occupying  the  first  place,  we  specify  per- 
sonal PIETY.  Without  this,  no  man  is  in  a  state 
of  reconciliation  luith  God.  And  is  it  credible, 
that  "the  ministry  of  reconciliation"  can  be  law- 
fully committed  to  one,  who  is  i^nreconciled  in 
the  temper  of  his  own  mind  ?  Would  any  human 
being  employ  an  individual,  at  en7nity  loitli  him- 
self, to  effect  a  reconciliation  with  a  third  party, 
in  relation  to  whom  some  ground  of  difference  or 
alienation  might  exist  ?  And,  if  it  would  be  ab- 
surd to  suppose  this,  must  we  not  believe,  on  the 
same  principle,  that  personal  reconciliation  to  God 
is  a  fundamental  requisite,  in  the  constitution  of 
the  ministerial  character  ?  Mark  the  significant 
declaration  of  Paul  in  relation  to  this  point.  In 
speaking  of  himself  and  his  brethren,  as  having 
received  the  ministry  of  reconciliation,  he  repre- 
sents God  as  having  reconciled  them  to  himself, 
before  this  gift  was  conferred  upon  them — ''  who 
hath  reconciled  us  to  himself  by  Jesus  Christ,  and 
hath  given  to  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation." 
This  is  the  order  established  by  divine  wisdom, 
and  proclaimed  as  necessary  by  the  nature  of  the 
case.  So  that  a  thousand  ordinations  would  be 
ineffectual,  towards  conferring  the  ministerial  cha- 
racter upon  one,  who  is  in  a  state  of  enmity  against 
God. 


262  DISCOURSES  ON 

Again,  without  personal  piety,  there  can  be  no 
love  to  Christ.  And  how  is  it  possible,  that  an 
individual  can  be  the  duly  commissioned  servant 
of  one,  for  whom  he  entertains  no  affection?  The 
question  was  put,  significantly,  to  the  apostle  Pe- 
ter, "  Lovest  thou  me"  ?  before  he  received  the 
command^  "feed  my  lambs,"  "  feed  my  sheep." 
All  the  apostles  were  distinguished,  by  the  posses- 
sion and  exercise  of  this  strong  affection.  "  The 
love  of  Christ  constraineth  us,"  was  the  language 
in  which  they  described,  at  once,  the  most  promi- 
nent trait  of  their  character,  and  the  main  secret 
of  their  activity  and  success.  "Without  this  prin- 
ciple, they  would  not  have  been  qualified,  either 
for  the  labors,  or  the  sufferings,  to  which  they  were 
called.  And  that  which  was  essential  to  the  min- 
isterial character  in  them,  must  be  equally  so  in 
the  persons  of  their  true  successors. 

Once  more,  we  remark,  that,  without  personal 
piety,  there  cannot  be  consistent  and  uniform  ho- 
liness of  life.  And  can  an  individual  be  lawfully 
appointed  to  preach  the  gospel,  who  is  living  in 
such  a  way,  as  to  defeat  the  very  object  of  the 
message  which  he  brings  ?  In  answer  to  this,  it 
is  enough  to  quote  the  plain  declarations  of  scrip- 
ture, as  to  what  a  minister  of  Christ  must  be,  in 
respect  to  his  personal  deportment.  He  must  ap- 
prove himself,  " by  pureness,"   as  well  as   "by 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  263 

knowledge,"  and  "  by  the  armor  of  righteous- 
ness, on  the  right  hand,  and  on  the  left" — he  must 
be  "blameless,"  ''giving  none  offence  in  any 
thing,  that  the  ministry  be  not  blamed" — he  must 
be  "a  lover  of  good  men,"  "sober,"  "just," 
"holy,"  "temperate."  Such  were  the  apostles 
of  Christ,  and  such  are  their  true  successors  in  all 
ages  of  the  world.  Unconverted  and  wicked 
men  are  not  "  shepherds"  but  "  luolves^''  among 
the  sheep — they  are  hirelings  w^ho  care  not  for 
the  sheep — they  are  thieves  and  robbers  who,  in- 
stead of  entering  by  the  door  into  the  sheep-fold, 
have  climbed  up  in  some  other  way. 

But  I  remark  farther,  that,  in  connection  with 
personal  piety  the  true  succession  will  always 
consist  of  those  who  preach  the  true  gospel. 
Paul  speaks  of  committing  the  gospel  "  to  faith- 
ful men";  and  a  faithful  man  he  describes  as 
"holding  fast  the  faithful  ivord,  as  he  hath  been 
taught,  that  he  may  be  able  by  sound  doctrine, 
both  to  exhort  and  to  convince  the  gainsayers." 
He  says, — "  Though  we,  or  an  angel  from 
heaven,  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you,  than 
that  which  w^e  have  preached  unto  you,  let  him 
he  accursed."  "If  there  come  any  unto  you," 
says  the  apostle  John,  "and  bring  not  this  doc- 
tri7ie,  receive  him  not  into  your  house,  neither  bid 
him  God  speed."     This  language  is  decisive,  as 


264  DISCOURSES  ON 

to  the  fact,  that  no  bearer  oi false  doctrine  can  be 
a  true  minister  of  Christ,  or  should  ever  be  ac- 
knowledged as  such,  by  the  churches  of  God. 
The  tendency  of  his  work  is  not  to  build  up,  but 
to  cast  down,  and  destroy ;  instead  of  being  a 
*' worker  together  ?d;z7/t  God,"  he  w^orks  against 
him,  with  all  the  force  of  his  influence  and  exam- 
ple; he  is  a  successor  to  Satan,  in  whom  is  "the 
spirit  of  error ^''^  and  not  a  successor  to  the  Apos- 
tles, in  whom  was  "the  spirit  of  truth.^' 

To  this,  we  add,  that  the  true  succession  will 
always  be  found  exclusively  in  the  line  of  those 
ministers  who  are  divinely  sent — who,  in  con- 
nection with  their  outward  ordination,  have  an  in- 
ivard  call  to  the  work — or  who,  as  the  ordination 
service  of  the  Church  of  England  expresses  it,  are 
"  imvardly  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghosts  This  is 
the  foundation  of  all  that  is  valuable,  as  connect- 
ed with  this  office .  Bilney,  the  martyr,  says,  in 
a  letter  to  Tonstal,  bishop  of  London — "  This  is 
the  root  of  all  mischief  in  the  church,  that  they 
(the  ministers)  are  not  imvardly  sent  of  God. 
Without  this  inward  calling,  it  helpeth  nothing  be- 
fore God,  to  be  a  hundred  times  elect  and  con- 
secrate by  a  thousand  bulls,  either  hj  pope,  kingy 
or  emperor.^^  This  is  the  language  of  truth  and 
soberness ;  it  accords,  too,  with  the  language  of 
scripture  on  the  same  subject.     The  true  ministry 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  265 

are  there  described,  as  those  who  have  their  com- 
mission/?*om  God — they  are  "laborers,"  who  are 
sent  into  the  field  by  "  the  Lord  of  the  harvest" — 
they  are  "  stewards,"  whom  God  has  appointed 
over  his  own  "  household" — they  are  "  the  gift 
of  Christ ^''^  to  those  to  whom  they  are  sent — and, 
as  their  call  is  from  Him,  so  it  is  to  Him,  immedi- 
ately, that  they  must  render  their  account.  A 
ministry,  thus  called  of  God,  we  have  no  doubt 
will  always  exist ;  and  it  is  to  such  a  ministry, 
that  Christ  has  promised  his  presence,  till  the  end 
of  the  world. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  the  true  succession  in 
the  ministry,  runs,  not  so  much  in  the  line  of  a 
mere  outward  ceremony,  as  in  the  line  of  an  in- 
ward call  from  God,  accompanied  hy  personal pie^ 
iy  and  the  faithful  preaching  of  '-Hhe  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus." — And,  to  strengthen  this  conclusion,  we 
call  your  attention  to  the  fact,  that  it  falls  in  pre- 
cisely with  the  RULE  prescribed  in  the  Bible,  for 
distinguishing  between  a  genuine  and  a  spurious 
ministry,  in  particular  cases. 

"  Beloved,"  says  the  apostle  John,  "  beheve 
not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  whether  they 
are  of  God :  because  many  false  prophets  are 
gone  out  into  the  world."  This  is  a  case  direct- 
ly in  point.  It  refers,  expressly,  to  public  teach- 
ers, or  preachers  of  the  gospel — it  assumes  that 
23 


266  DISCOURSES  ON 

the  church  is  bound  to  exercise  its  judgment  up- 
on the  question,  whether  they  are  ti'ue^  ox  false — 
it  assumes,  also,  that,  in  doing  this,  they  are  to 
be  guided  and  governed  by  a  certain  standard, 
or  rule  of  judgment.  Now,  ivhat  is  the  rule  ? 
How  are  the  spirits  to  be  tried  ?  By  what  marks 
are  the  false  prophets  to  be  distinguished  from  the 
true  ?  Are  Ave  to  inquire  first,  most  of  all,  or  ex- 
clusively, who  ordained  them  ?  whether  the 
hands  of  a  prelate  have  been  imposed  upon  them  ? 
and  whether  certain  words  were  used,  in  perform- 
ing the  ceremony,  without  omission,  or  altera- 
tion ?  Or  are  we  to  inquire,  in  the  light  of  the 
general  principles  laid  down  in  the  word  of  God, 
into  tlie  spirit,  the  doctrine,  and  the  lives  of  the 
men  themselves  ?  Yes,  says  the  apostle, — 
"  Hereby  know  ye  the  spirit  of  God  :  every  spi- 
rit that  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
flesh,  is  of  God  :  and  every  spirit  that  confesseth 
not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  not 
of  God."  And,  in  another  place,  he  answers  the 
question,  still  more  distinctly  and  fully,  when  he 
says — "  Many  deceivers  are  gone  out  into  the 
world" — "look  to  yourselves" — ''whosoever  abi- 
deth  not  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  hath  not  God. 
He  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he  hath 
both  the  Father  and  the  Son.  If  there  come  any 
unto  you,  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive  him 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  267 

not  into  your  house,  neither  bid  him  God  speed." 
Here  every  thing  is  plain,  rational,  and  satisfac- 
tory. It  is  as  if  he  had  said, — 'When  you  meet 
with  an  individual,  who  professes  to  be  a  minis- 
ter of  Christ,  try  him  at  once  by  his  own  doctrine 
— if  he  preaches  Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified, 
as  the  foundation  of  the  sinner's  hope,  receive  this 
as  evidence  in  his  favor — if  he  does  not,  reject 
him  without  hesitation.' 

Similar  to  this,  is  the  rule  prescribed  by  the 
apostle  Paul.  He  speaks  of  false  teachers,  as 
existing  in  his  time  in  the  church  at  Corinth  ;  and 
has  no  hesitation  in  declaring  them  to  be  "  minis- 
ters of  Satan."  But  how  did  he  know  that  they 
were  '' ministers  of  Satan,"  and  not  ministers  of 
Christ  ?  Not  by  inquiring  into  the  mode  of  their 
ordination^  and  finding  that  this  was  defective ; 
but  by  the  fact,  that  they  handled  the  word  of 
God  deceitfully — corrupted  the  word  of  God — 
denied  the  resurrection^ — and  thus  showed,  that 
the  doctrine  which  they  preached  was  not  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ. 

And  in  reference  to  the  same  point,  what  can 
be  more  explicit  than  the  teaching  of  our  Saviour 
himself?  He  says  to  his  hearers — "Beware  of 
false  prophets^  which  come  to  you  in  sheep's  cloth- 
ing, but  inwardly  they  are  ravening  wolves." 
Here,  again,  the  persons  referred  to  are  public 


268  DISCOURSES  ON 

teachers :  all  is  supposed  to  be  right,  as  to  their 
ouhvard  appearance  ;  and  yet,  the  fact  is,  that  they 
are  false  teachers.  Now,  how  is  this  to  be  ascer- 
tained ?  Not  by  inquiring  into  their  ecclesiastical 
pedigree — not  by  tracing  the  line  of  their  descent, 
along  a  series  of  ordination  acts,  performed  in  a 
certain  way — but  by  looking  immediately,  and  di- 
rectly, at  their  own  character  and  conduct.  Yes, 
says  the  Saviour, — ''  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know 
them."  "  Do  men  gather  grapes  of  thorns,  or 
figs  of  thistles  ?  Even  so  every  good  tree  bring- 
eth  forth  good  fruit ;  but  a  corrupt  tree  bringeth 
forth  evil  fruit.  A  good  tree  cannot  bring  forth 
evil  fruit,  neither  can  a  corrupt  tree  bring  forth 
good  fruit."  This  is  a  standard  of  judgment 
which  is  plain,  and  palpable  :  it  is  a  test  of  cha- 
racter, which  commends  itself  to  the  reason  and 
common  sense  of  every  reflecting  mind  ;  and,  in 
its  connection,  it  proves  beyond  all  contradiction, 
that  the  true  succession  in  the  ministry  is  to  be 
determined,  by  other  and  more  substantial  consid- 
erations, than  those  which  relate  to  the  circum- 
stances attending  their  ordination.  The  ministry 
to  whom  Christ  promised  his  presence,  is  com- 
posed of  those  who  are  reconciled  to  God,  who 
love  Christ,  who  hold  the  truth  and  preach  it, 
and  who  commend  their  message  to  others  by  the 
holiness  of  their  own  lives. 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  269 

2,  Again,  the  false  succession  not  only  supposes 
the  ministry  to  be  perpetuated  by  a  mere  ceremo- 
ny, but  it  proceeds  npon  the  monstrous  assump- 
tion, that  this  ceremony  extends  the  line  of  suc- 
cession ivitli  equal  certainty,  v^hether  the  person  on 
whoin  it  is  performed  be  a  good,  or  a  bad  man — a 
saint,  or  a  sinner — a  servant  of  God,  or  a  servant 
of  Satan.  That  there  is  no  exaggeration,  or  mis- 
take, in  this  statement  of  the  doctrine,  we  have 
already  shown,  by  quoting  the  opinions  of  its  ad- 
vocates. They  contend,  that  '•^  the  umvorthiness 
of  man  cannot  i^revent  the  goodness  of  God  from 
flowing  in  those  appointed  channels  in  which  he 
has  destined  it  to  flow."  Let  the  individual  or- 
dained be  as  wicked  as  he  may;  it  is  still  main- 
tained, that  he  is  a  minister  of  Christ,  if  the  hands 
imposed  upon  him  have  been  those  of  a  prelatical 
bishop.  And  from  this  it  results,  that  hundreds 
of  men  have  been  clothed  Avith  the  ministerial 
character,  and  have  transmitted  it  to  others, 
who  have  lived  openly  in  the  indulgence  of  the 
grossest  vices,  and  done  more  than  almost  any 
others  to  banish  true  religion  from  the  w^orld. 

Now  reason  and  scripture  unitedly  judge,  that 
a  succession  ascertained  on  this  principle,  is  not, 
and  cannot  be,  the  succession  which  has  the  pro- 
mise of  Christ.  To  suppose  this,  is  to  overturn 
the  very  foundations  of  the  christian  system — to 
23* 


270  DISCOURSES  ON 

level  all  the  distinctions  between  religion  and  irre- 
ligion — between  truth,  and  error—between  virtue, 
and  vice ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  render  the 
word  of  God  inconsistent  with  itself.  Christ  has 
never  promised  to  be  with  bad  men,  either  in  the 
ministry,  or  out  of  it.  A  wicked  man  is  not  al- 
tered, in  his  sight,  by  the  mere  ceremony  of  ordi- 
nation ;  He  still  vicAvs  him  as  he  is,  and  gives 
him  no  reason  to  expect  his  presence  and  appro- 
bation, in  any  thing  that  he  does.  And  therefore 
the  very  fact,  that  he  has  promised  to  be  with  a 
ministry  till  the  end  of  the  world,  is  of  itself  a  suf- 
ficient proof,  that  the  particular  ministry  which 
he  had  in  view,  was  a  ministry  composed  of  good 
men  ; — not  of  men  deriving  their  character  from 
the  mode  of  their  ordination  ;  but  of  men  renew- 
ed and  sanctified  by  his  own  spirit,  and  constrain- 
ed by  the  power  of  his  love  to  devote  themselves 
to  his  service.  Such  a  ministry  he  will  raise  up, 
and  qualify,  and  commission,  as  times  and  cir- 
cumstances require  ;  and  he  will  never  leave  nor 
forsake  them,  whatever  may  be  the  name  which 
they  bear,  or  the  outward  form  under  which  they 
exist.  They  shall  have  the  testimony  of  his  pre- 
sence and  friendship  in  this  world ;  and,  when 
called  to  the  account  of  their  stewardship,  their 
acceptance  will  not  turn  upon  any  questions  relat- 
ing to  their  ordination,  but  only  upon  their  faith- 


APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  271 

fill  performance  of  the  duties  connected  with  their 
high  and  responsible  trust.  ''  Well  done,  thou 
good  and  faithful  servanf^ — "  enter  thou  into  the 
joy  of  thy  Lord." 

3.  The  scheme  of  succession,  which  relies  ex- 
clusively upon  a  line  of  prelatical  bishops,  in- 
volves the  unnatural  and  repulsive  supposition, 
that  SUCCESS  in  the  ministry^  is  no  evidence  of  the 
presence  of  Christy  or  the  approbatioji  of  God, 
It  matters  not  how  successful  an  individual  may 
be,  in  apparently  securing  the  direct  results  which 
the  ministry  has  in  view — his  preaching  may  pro- 
duce an  obvious  and  powerful  effect  upon  the 
minds  of  his  hearers — the  ignorant,  who  sit  under 
his  ministry,  may  be  enhghtened — the  secure,  and 
thoughtless,  may  be  awakened  and  alarmed — 
anxious  inquirers  after  the  way  of  salvation  may 
find  pardon  and  peace — the  afflicted  may  be  sus- 
tained and  comforted — the  wandering  may  be  re- 
claimed— and  those  who  are  established  in  the 
faith  may  abound  more  and  more  in  every  good 
work ;  and  yet  it  is  still  true,  if  the  hands  of  a 
prelate  have  not  been  laid  upon  him,  that  he  is  no 
minister  of  Christ :  he  is  a  usurper  of  the  place  he 
occupies :  his  "  supposed  commission  is  worse 
than  a  nullity":  and  he  is  ''treading  in  the  foot- 
steps of  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  whose  aw- 
ful punishment  you  read  of  in  the  book  of  Num- 
bers"! ! 


272  DISCOURSES  ON 

Now  go  with  this  principle,  on  a  course  of  ex- 
amination around  the  christian  world,  and  see 
what  strange  and  startling  conclusions  it  will  re- 
quire you  to  embrace.  You  enter  a  house  of 
worship,  Avhere  all  around  you  are  strangers — 
you  take  your  seat  among  others  who  enter,  and 
listen  attentively  to  what  is  imparted  from  the 
sacred  desk.  You  perceive  that  the  speaker  is 
weak  in  intellect — that  his  manner  is  w^ithout  in- 
terest, or  life — that  he  has  no  right  perception  of 
the  scriptural  plan  of  redemption — that  he  even 
teaches  his  hearers  to  rely  for  salvation  upon  false 
grounds — and  that  no  visible  effect  is  produced 
by  his  preaching.  On  inquiry,  you  ascertain,  that 
thus  it  has  always  been — that,  within  the  sphere 
of  his  ministrations,  the  cause  of  morality  and  pie- 
ty has  never  advanced — that  the  vicious  remain 
undisturbed  in  their  sins — that  the  moralist  goes 
about  to  establish  his  own  righteousness — and 
that  those  who  profess  to  be  christians  exhibit 
nothing  of  the  life  and  power  of  godliness  ;  and, 
at  this  point,  you  are  tempted  to  conclude,  that  he 
must  have  mistaken  his  profession,  and  entered 
the  ministry  without  being  called  of  God,  But, 
while  in  the  act  of  coming  to  this  conclusion,  you 
are  told,  that,  in  very  deed,  he  was  ordained  by 
a  prelatical  bishop — that  the  hands  of  a  lineal  de- 
scendant of  the  apostles  were  laid  upon  him — and 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  273 

therefore  that,  beyond  a  question,  he  possesses 
the  '  apostolical  grace.^  And  this,  according  to 
the  doctrine,  must  remove  all  your  misgivings  at 
once,  and  settle  you  down  in  the  assurance,  that 
notwithstanding  all  appearances  to  the  contrary, 
he  is  a  true  ambassador  for  Christ ! 

After  leaving  the  scene  of  his  performances, 
you  enter  another  place  of  worship,  which  is 
crowded  with  an  attentive  and  serious  audience. 
You  are  interested  at  once,  in  the  appearance  and 
manner  of  him,  who  rises  to  address  them — you 
perceive,  as  he  proceeds,  that  he  not  only  under- 
stands the  scriptural  plan  of  salvation  in  theory, 
but  that  he  seems  to  feel  the  power  of  its  great 
principles  upon  his  own  heart — you  observe  that 
his  hearers  drink  in  the  truths  which  he  delivers, 
with  evident  avidity  and  delight — that  all  are  in- 
terested, and  some  deeply  affected.  And,  on  in- 
quiry, you  learn,  that  these  indications  are  not 
equivocal — that  an  evident  influence  from  on  high 
attends  the  ministrations  of  this  individual — that 
many  cases  of  repentance  and  reformation  occur 
— that  the  tone  of  morality  is  high  and  healthy — 
that  piety  flourishes,  and  good  works  abound. 
But  when  ready  to  infer,  from  these  indications, 
that  this  must  indeed  be  a  man  of  God,  bearing  a 
commission  from  heaven,  and  guided  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  you  are  told  that  he  was  ordained  by  a 


'r 
274  DISCOURSES    ON 

presbytery,  and  not  by  a  prelatical  bishop  !  The 
consequence  is,  that  you  must  start  back  from  the 
conclusion  which  you  were  about  to  form.  You 
have  heard  that,  Avhich  puts  an  entirely  different 
face  upon  the  whole  scene.  You  must  now  con- 
sider, that  these  favorable  indications,  which  at- 
tracted your  attention,  are  all  deceitful — that  they 
are  no  signs  whatever,  of  the  presence  of  Christ, 
or  the  approbation  of  God — that  the  person,  in 
connection  with  whose  agency  they  appear,  is  no 
minister  of  Christ  at  all ;  but  one  of  those  dissent- 
ing, sectarian  pretenders,  who  run  without  being 
sent,  and  wickedly  intermeddle  with  the  solemn 
duties  of  an  office,  which  has  never  been  con- 
ferred upon  them. 

These  are  the  monstrous  conclusions  which  an 
adherence  to  the  prelatical  succession  requires  us 
to  embrace.  It  drives  us  to  the  necessity  of  ad- 
mitting, that  such  men  as  Laud,  Bonner,  Swift, 
and  Sterne,  who  did  a  thousand  times  more  to 
demolish  the  church  of  God  than  to  build  it  up, 
were  true  ministers,  while  Luther  and  Knox, 
"Watts  and  Doddridge,  Edwards  and  Davies  were 
gross  impostors — preaching  without  authority — 
and  pretending  to  administer  sacraments,  while 
they  had  "  no  real  sacraments  to  give."  In  short 
it  is  the  manifest  and  revolting  absurdity  of  this 
system,  that  it  casts  out  of  the  ministry  the  very 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  275 

best  men  and  admits  the  very  ivorst ;  and  thereby 
confounds  all  distinction  between  fitness  and  un- 
fitness— between  virtue  and  vice- — between  right 
and  wrong. 

We  say  then,  in  opposition  to  all  this,  that  the 
true  succession  is  to  be  found  in  every  age,  in 
the  line  of  a  successful  ministry.  Paul  said,  in 
looking  upon  those  who  were  coverted  through 
his  instrumentality,  "  the  seal  of  mine  aposileship 
are  ye  in  the  Lord."  And  this  declaration  exhi- 
bits the  truth  in  the  case,  with  great  simplicity  and 
distinctness.  It  proceeds  upon  the  supposition, 
that  the  blessing  of  God  upon  his  labors  was  a 
visible  authentication  of  his  call  to  preach  the 
gospel,  which  might  be  ''  known  and  read  of  all 
men."  His  argument  is,  that  if  his  preaching 
had  produced  no  effect,  his  claim  to  be  regarded 
as  an  apostle  of  Christ,  might  well  have  been 
doubted ;  but  that  success  is  so  sure  a  proof  of  the 
presence  of  Christ,  and  the  approbation  of  God, 
that  he  beheld  a  seal  of  his  apostleship,  in  every 
individual  among  his  spiritual  children. 

And  surely  the  test,  which  determined  the  true 
ministry  in  his  day,  must  be  equally  available  to 
the  ascertainment  of  the  true  succession,  in  all 
ages  and  countries.  If  the  call  of  an  individual 
to  this  work  is  of  God,  it  is  to  be  expected,  that 
the  blessing  of  God,  in  the  way  of  success,  will 


276  DISCOURSES  ON 

attend  him :  he  will  see  the  fruit  of  his  labor,  in 
those  results  which  the  ministry  is  designed  to  se- 
cure :  and  this  will  be  an  outward  and  visible  sign, 
that  he  belongs  to  the  line  of  descent,  which  has 
the  promise  of  Christ. 

Very  instructive,  as  relating  to  this  point,  was 
the  incident  between  our  Saviour  and  his  disciples 
concerning  the  man,  who  was  not  of  their  compa- 
ny, and  yet  was  seen  casting  out  devils  in  his 
name.  They  say  unto  Christ, — ''We  forbade 
him,  because  he  folloiveth  not  us  ;"  their  views,  at 
that  time,  were  precisely  the  views  of  those  per- 
sons now,  who  would  ascertain  the  true  ministry, 
by  external  relations,  or  lines  of  distinction  alone  : 
the  man  in  question  did  not  belong  to  their  num- 
ber ;  and,  for  this  reason,  they  set  him  down,  as 
having  no  right  to  cast  out  devils,  or  perform  any 
other  service  in  the  name  of  their  Master.  The 
answer  of  the  Saviour  stands,  as  a  permanent  re- 
buke, to  all  such  exclusive  pretensions — ''  Jesus 
said.  Forbid  him  not  :  for  there  is  no  man  that 
shall  do  a  miracle  in  my  name  that  can  speak 
lightly  of  me.''  His  approbation  rested  upon 
what  the  individual  did,  and  not  upon  any  thing 
appertaining  to  his  outward  relations :  he  was  suc- 
cessful in  his  operations  against  the  kingdom  of 
Satan,  and  in  support  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ : 
and  this,  to  the  mind  of  the  Saviour,  determined 


,       APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION.  2*77 

his  true  character,  and  placed  him  among  the 
number  of  his  friends  and  servants. 

Guided  by  this  view,  we  shall  never  fail  to 
find  a  succession  in  the  ministry,  according  to 
the  promise  of  Christ.  But  we  shall  see  it, 
not  so  often  in  the  walks  of  a  hierarchy  of  any 
description,  as  in  humbler,  less  ostentatious,  and 
more  retired  places.  We  shall  see  it,  where  the 
truth  is  preached  in  simplicity,  in  faithfulness, 
and  with  affection ;  we  shall  see  it,  where  the 
wicked  are  convinced  of  sin  and  brought  to  re- 
pentance— we  shall  see  it,  where  believers  grow 
in  grace,  where  the  church  is  edified  and  render- 
ed efficient,  where  the  fruits  of  righteousness 
appear,  ''which  are  by  Jesus  Christ,  unto  the  glo- 
ry and  praise  of  God."  A  ministry  attended  by 
such  seals  as  these,  is  a  ministry,  not  in  form,  but 
in  deed  and  in  truth.  It  has  existed  in  all  ages 
that  are  past ;  it  exists  now  ;  and  the  line  of  its 
succession  will  remain  unbroken,  till  the  end  of 
the  world. 

These  observations,  we  trust,  will  enable  you 
to  draw  the  line  of  distinction  where  it  ought  to 
be  drawn,  between  the  true  and  the  false  succes- 
sion in  the  christian  ministry.  The  false  succes- 
sion depends  for  its  perpetuity  upon  the  mere  cere- 
mony of  ordination,  as  performed  in  a  particular 
way — the  true,  w'^on  personal  piety,  soundness  of 
24 


278  DISCOURSES  ON 

doctrine,  and  an  inward  call  from  God  to  the  min- 
isterial work  :  the  false  succession  supposes,  that 
the  worst  of  men  may  be  the  duly  commissioned 
ministers  of  Christ — the  true,  includes  those  only 
who  are  personally  reconciled  to  God,  who  love 
Christ,  and  are  heartily  devoted  to  his  service : 
the  false  succession  takes  in  the  inactive,  the  idle, 
and  the  unsuccessful — the  true,  consists  exclusive- 
ly of  the  laborers  who  work  in  the  field,  of  the 
soldiers  who  strive  in  the  warfare,  of  the  servants 
who  work  for  their  master,  of  the  reapers  who 
gather  in  the  harvest. 

That  the  human  eye  should  be  able,  in  all 
cases,  to  distinguish  between  the  true  and  the 
false,  is  not,  indeed,  to  be  supposed.  As  a  wolf 
may  pass  for  a  sheep,  when  "  in  sheep's  cloth- 
ing," so  a  mere  pretender  may  pass  ^ among  men 
for  a  true  minister  of  Christ ;  nor  is  it  incredible, 
that,  while  the  deception  remains  undetected,  the 
truth  which  he  preaches  may  be  the  instrument  of 
good.  But  there  is  no  more  difficulty  here,  than 
in  distinguishing  between  true  christians  and  hy- 
pocrites, among  the  private  members  of  the 
church.  A  succession  of  true  christians  there 
will  always  be  ;  and  the  general  fact  will  be  plain 
and  palpable  to  every  candid  observer,  although, 
in  visible  connection  with  them,  there  will  always 
be  many  who  have  the  form  of  godliness  without 


APOSTOLIC   SUC0Ei3SION. 


279     C 


the  power.  And  so,  there  will  always  be  a  suc- 
cession of  pious,  orthodox,  laborious,  and  useful 
ministers  of  the  gospel,  although,  in  connection 
with  them,  there  may  be  many  Avho  have  not  the 
spirit  of  the  office  which  they  profess  to  fill.  What 
the  discernment  of  man  cannot  detect,  however, 
is  not  hidden  from  the  eye  of  Him,  who  walketh 
in  the  midst  of  the  golden  candlesticks,  and  hold- 
eth  the  stars  in  his  right  hand.  He  is  acquainted 
with  his  own  servants  ;  he  knows  them  well ;  and 
the  promise  which  he  has  given  them  shall  never 
fail.  In  all  the  duties  and  trials  of  their  work, 
they  shall  find  support  and  consolation  in  him. 
And,  after  turning  many  unto  righteousness,  their 
distinction  will  be,  that  they  "  shall  shine  as  the 
brightness  of  the  firmament,"  and  ''  as  the  stars 
for  ever  and  ever." 

We  have  now  completed  the  outline,  which  we 
contemplated,  at  the  commencement  of  these  dis- 
courses. We  have  set  aside  the  succession  by 
prelatical  bishops,  as  alike  unscriptural,  irrational, 
and  unsustained  by  historical  facts  ;  and  we  have 
brought  before  you  the  succession,  which,  on 
scriptural  principles,  we  have  a  right  to  expect, 
and  which  alone  can  claim  an  interest  in  the 
promise  of  Christ. 

In  conclusion,  we  desire  to  say,  as  was  ob- 
served in  the  commencement,  that,  in  projecting 


280  DISCOURSES  ON 

the  line  of  this  argument,  we  had  no  intention  of 
assaihng  Episcopacy,  in   any  other  view  than   as 
claiming  to  be,  by  divine  right,  the  one  essential, 
and  only  form,  under  which  the  Church  of  Christ 
can  exist,  and  thereby  excluding  from  the  visible 
family  of  God   all  other  denominations  of  profess- 
ing Christians.     If  there  are  those,  who  prefer  this 
to   any   other  form   of  church  polity,  upon  the 
ground  of  expediency,  we  have   no  wish  to  dis- 
turb them  in  the    enjoyment  of  their  opinion  and 
preference.     Nay,  if  they  should  regard  and  con- 
tend for  this,  as  the  form  which  is  sanctioned  by 
scriptural  example,  we  should  not  object,  provid- 
ed it  were  admitted,  that  those  who  dissent  from 
this   opinion,  may  be  considered  as  belonging  to 
the    Church  of   Christ,    as  well    as   themselves. 
Even  on  this   platform,   we  should   be  ready  to 
meet  them  in  christian  friendship,  and   to  co-ope- 
rate with  them  in  every  good   work.       But  when 
the  enormous  pretension  is  put  forth  and  main- 
tained, that  Episcopacy  is  essential  at  once  to  the 
being  of  a  church,  and  to  an  authorized  hope  of 
salvation — that  there  can  be  no  ministry  without 
it — and  that  those  churches,  which  are  differently 
organized,  are  in  no  better   condition  than  the 
heathen — it  is  time  for   the  friends  of  truth  and 
charity,  and  for  the  advocates  of  both  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty,  to  arise  and  rebel. 


APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  281 

This  is  the  claim,  against  which  we  have  enter- 
ed our  protest.  We  have  argued  against  it,  from 
scripture,  from  history,  from  reason,  and  from 
common  sense  ;  and  against  it,  we  are  determined 
to  be,  as  long  as  we  have  an  understanding,  to 
distinguish  between  truth  and  falsehood — a  heart, 
to  feel  the  power  of  motives  to  do  right —  and  a 
tongue,  to  speak,  either  for  the  honor  of  God,  or 
the  welfare  of  man.  We  are  as  sure,  as  we  can 
be  of  any  thing,  that  true  piety  does  not  exist,  as 
a  monopoly,  within  the  inclosure  of  any  particu- 
lar form  of  ecclesiastical  polity — that  the  church 
of  the  Redeemer,  bought  Avith  blood,  does  not  de- 
pend for  its  existence,  and  perpetuity,  upon  any 
one  order  in  the  ministry  to  the  exclusion  of 
others — and  that  all  opinions,  which  are  contrary 
to  this,  are  uncharitable  in  their  nature,  and  inju- 
rious in  their  effects.  We  have  never  harbored 
a  feeling  of  unkindness  towards  any  individual,  for 
belonging  to  a  different  denomination  from  our 
own.  We  can  give  the  right  hand  of  fellowship, 
as  cordially  and  warmly,  to  a  pious  and  liberal 
hearted  Episcopalian,  as  to  any  human  being 
that  lives.  But  arrogance,  intolerance,  and  ex- 
clusive pretensions,  in  matters  relating  to  salva- 
tion, where  all  are  beggars  at  the  footstool  of  di- 
vine mercy,  we  cannot  bear.  These  things  are 
the  objects  of  our  unceasing,  and  incurable  dis- 


1 


282  DISCOURSES  ON 

gust.  And  we  do  intend,  as  long  as  we  live  and 
breathe,  to  bear  testimony  against  them,  "  in  sea- 
son, and  out  of  season" — to  hold  them  up  to  the 
rebuke,  and  reprobation,  of  the  wise  and  the 
good — and  to  call  upon  those,  who  love  the 
truth,  and  would  keep  the  unity  of  the  spirit 
in  the  bond  of  peace,  to  be  of  one  mind  in 
endeavouring  to  oppose,  and  put  them  down. 
They  are  not  suited  to  the  age,  and  country,  in 
which  we  live — they  are  too  lofty,  and  exclusive, 
to  agree  with  the  genius  of  our  institutions — and 
they  partake,  too  much,  of  the  bigotry,  and  into- 
lerance of  the  darkest  ages,  to  be  consistent  with 
the  faith  and  doings  of  a  century,  in  which  *'  the 
true  light"  is  shining  toward  every  quarter  of  the 
globe,  and  men  of  every  country,  and  clime,  are 
beginning  to  rejoice  in  the  liberty  of  the  children 
of  God. 

In  the  ranks  of  opposition  to  these  unrighteous 
and  uncharitable  assumptions,  may  you  be  found, 
with  united  front,  whatever  your  denominational 
distinctions  may  be !  Contend,  in  your  respec- 
tive spheres,  for  ^'  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints."  And  never  forget,  that  on  the  platform 
of  this  faith,  "  circumcision  is  nothing,  and  uncir- 
cumcision  is  nothing" — and  that  "he  is  not  a 
Jew,  which  is  one  outwardly :  neither  is  circum- 
cision that,  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh  :  but  he 


APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION.  283 

is  a  Jew,  which  is  one  inwardly ;  and  circumcis- 
ion is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in 
the  letter ;  whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of 
God." 


Date  Due 

■ 

^I'P'^^^Si 

mm 

^ 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01010  6716 


«i 


'    ' '  ■  H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hfil'MI  IIHEI 

i :      1 

^^■i 

liil 

^HH 

-''1 

i 

H 

W 

